THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM 
IN  FRANCE 


THE 

FALL   OF    FEUDALISM 

IN   FRANCE 


BY 


SYDNEY    HERBERT 

AS-OTANT    LECTL'RtR.    r\IVF,R>!TT    f     'I.t-KGiC,    ABhlRTS  TWV  IM 


"the   abolition    or    the    economic    PRIVILECES    of    Af.RARlA.N    rtUOALI-.M 
.    .    .    WAS    THE    DRIVING    FORCE    OF    THE    FREHCH    RBVOLUTIQN." 

R.   H.    TAWNBV 


NEW  YORK 

FREDERICK   A.   STOKES  COMPANY 

PUBLISHERS 


TO 


ALFRED    ZIMMERN 


4C27u^ 


PREFACE 

I  HAVE,  I  hope,  made  my  debt  to  the  many  French 
and  Russian  scholars  whose  works  I  have  used 
sufficiently  clear  in  the  footnotes  to  this  book.  But 
I  cannot  forbear  to  make  special  mention  of  M.  Ph. 
Sagnac,  the  reading  of  whose  admirable  Legislation 
civile  de  la  Revolution  frmigaisc  first  set  me  studying 
the  economic  aspects  of  the  Revolution. 

SYDNEY  HERBERT 

Aberystwyth 
September  1920 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 

vii 


Preface        ...... 

Principal  Works  Consulted  or  Cited  .  .      xi 

Introduction         .          .          .          •  •  .      xv 

CHAP. 

I.  Feudalism  in  1789 .           .           .           •  •  •        i 

II.  The  Peasants  and  their  Programme  .  •      S3 

III.  The  First  Peasant  Revolt        .           .  .  -89 

IV.  The  Night  of  4  August  .           .           .  .  .101 
\'.  Legislation  and  Insurrection,  1789-90  .  m 

VI.  The  Rural  Revolution,  1790-1            .  .  -     M7 

VII.  The  End  of  Feudalism   .           .           .  •  .178 

Appendix      .....••    202 

Index            .                      .  .225 


PRINCIPAL   WORKS    CONSULTED   OR 

CITED 

(Unless  otherwise  stated,  books  are  always  referred  to  in  the  notes 
by  the  author's  name  alone,  e.g.,  Aulard,  p.  loo.) 

COLLECTIONS  OF  DOCUMENTS,  LAWS,  ETC. 

Bligny-Boxdurand  (E.). — Cahiers  de  doleances  de  la  s&ne- 

chaussSe  de  Nimes. 
Block  (C). — Cahiers  de  doleances  du  hailUage  d' Orleans. 
BoissoNADE   (P.). — Cahiers  de  doleances  de  la  senechaussee 

d'Angouleme. 
BouRGiN  (G.). — Le  Partage  des  Biens  communaux. 
Bridrey  (E.). — Cahiers  de  doleances  du  hailliage  de  Cotentin. 
Cahen  and  Guyot. — L'CEuvre  legislative  de  la  Revolution. 
Duval. — Cahiers  du  bailliage  d'Alengon. 
Etienxe  (C). — Cahiers  du  bailliage  de  Vic. 
F0URAST16. — Cahiers  de  doleances  de  la  senechaussee  de  Cahors. 
FouRNiER  (J.). — Cahiers  de  doleances  de  la  senechaussee  de 

Marseille. 
Gandilhon  (A.). — Cahiers  de  doleances  du  hailliage  de  Bourges. 
Laurent  (G.). — Cahiers  de  doleances  du  bailliage  de  Chdlons- 

sur-Marne. 
LoRiQUET. — Les  Cahiers  du  Pas-de-Calais. 
Mavidal  and  Laurent. — Archives  Parlementaires. 
Mireur. — Cahiers   des   cotnmunaiites   de   la    senechaussee   de 

Draguignan. 


xii    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

PoREE  (C). — Cahiers  de  doleances  du  hailliage  de  Sens. 

Sagnac  and  Caron. — Les  Comites  des  droits  feodaux  et  I' aboli- 
tion du  regime  seigneurial  {iy8g-gj). 

Saint-Leger  and  Sagnac. — Les  Cahiers  de  la  Flandre  mari- 
time en  lySg. 

S:§;e  and  Lesort. — Cahiers  de  doleances  de  la  senechaussee  de 
Rennes. 

Thenard. — Cahiers  des  paroisses  des  bailliages  de  Versailles 
et  de  Meudon. 

Vernier  (J.  J.). — Cahiers  de  doleances  des  bailliages  de  Troyes 
et  de  Bar-sur -Seine. 

GENERAL  WORKS 

Aulard  (A.). — La  Revolution  franqaise  et  le  regime  feodal. 

BoiTEAU  (P.). — L'Etat  de  la  France  en  lyS^  (Second  Edition). 

BoNCERF  (P.  F.). — Les  inconvenients  des  droits  feodaux. 

Bord  (G.). — La  prise  de  la  Bastille. 

BucHEz  and  Roux. — Histoire  parlementaire  de  la  Revolution 
franqaise. 

Champion  (E.). — La  France  d'apres  les  cahiers  de  178^. 

Chassin  (C.  L.). — L'Eglise  et  les  derniers  serfs. 

Cherest  (A.). — La  chute  de  I'ancien  regime. 

DoNiOL  (H.). — La  Revolution  franqaise  et  la  feodalite. 

Jaures  (J.). — Histoire  Socialiste. 

Kareiew  (N.). — Les  Paysans  et  la  question  pay  sanne  en  France. 

KovALEWSKY  (M.). — La  France  economique  et  sociale  a  la 

veille  de  la  Revolution. 
Kropotkin  (P.). — The  Great  French  Revolution. 

LouTCHiSKY  (J.). — L'Etat  des  classes  agricoles  en  France  ^ 
la  veille  de  la  Revolution.  (Cited  as  Loutchisky,  Classes 
agricoles.) 

Loutchisky  (J.). — La  petite  propriete  en  France  avant  la 
Revolution.     (Cited  as  Loutchisky,  Petite  propriete.) 


PRINCIPAL  WORKS  CONSULTED  OR  CITED  xiii 

LouTCHiSKY  (J.). — La  propriete  paysanne  en  France  d  la  veille 
de  la  Revolution.  (Cited  as  Loutchisky,  Propriete  pay- 
sanne.) 

Marion  (H.). — La  dime  ecclesiasiique  en  France  au  xviii' 
siicle.     (Cited  as  Marion,  Dime  ecclesiasiique.) 

Sagnac  (Ph.). — La  legislation  civile  de  la  Revolution  frangaise. 

See  (H.). — Les  classes  rurales  en  France  au  Moyen-Age.  (Cited 
as  See,  Moyen-Age.) 

Taine  (H.). — L'ancien  regime. 

Taine  (H.). — La  Revolution. 

TocQUEViLLE  (A.  de). — L'ancien  regime  et  la  Revolution.  (Ed. 
G.  W.  Headlam.) 

Young  (Arthur). — Travels  in  France.    (Cited  under  dates.) 

REGIONAL  STUDIES 

Arnault  (M.). — La  Revolution  dans  les  Deux-Sevres. 

Bernier  (P.  D.). — Essai  sur  le  Tiers-Etat  rural  de  Normandie. 

Boivin-Champeaux  (L.). — Notices  historiques  sur  la  Revolu- 
tion dans  le  departement  de  I'Eure. 

Bouvier  (F.). — Les  Vosges  pendant  la  Revolution. 

Bruneau  (M.). — Les  debuts  de  la  Revolution  dans  le  Cher  et 

I'Indre. 
BussiERE  (G.). — La  Revolution  en  Perigord.     (Part  III.) 

Chatellier  (A.  DU). — La  Revolution  dans  les  departement s 
de  I'ancienne  Bretagne. 

Combes  (A.). — Histoire  de  la  ville  de  Castres. 

Combier  (E.  A.). — Les  justices  seigneuriales  du  bailliage  de 

Vermandois. 
Conard  (P.). — La  Peur  en  Dauphine. 
DucHEMiN  (V.). — Les  premiers  troubles  de  la  Revolution  daus 

la  Mayenne. 

DuPONT  (E.). — La  condition  des  paysans  dans  la  senechaussie 
de  Rennes. 


xiv    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

Duval  (L.). — Archives  revolutionnaires  de  la  Creuse. 

FiNOT  (J.). — Articles  in  Nouvelle  Revue  historique  de  droit 
franqais  for  1880  and  1881.  (Cited  as  Finot,  1880  or 
1881.) 

GiFFARD  (A.). — Les  justices  seigneuriales  en  Bretagne  (1661- 
1791). 

GuiLLEMAUT. — La  Revolution  dans  le  Louhannais. 

Hoffman  (C.  E.  A.)- — La  Haute-Alsace  d  la  veille  de  la  Revo- 
lution. 

Marion  (M.). — "Etat  des  classes  rurales  dans  la  g^neralite 
de  Bordeaux,"  in  Revue  des  Etudes  historiques,  1902. 
(Cited  as  Marion,  Bordeaux.) 

Mathieu  (Cardinal). — L'ancien  regime  en  Lorraine  et  Barrois 
(Edit.  1907). 

MfeGE  (F.). — Charges  et  contributions  des  habitants  de  I'Ati- 
vergne  a  la  fin  de  l'ancien  regime. 

Rameau  (B.). — La  Revolution  dans  l'ancien  diocese  de  Mdcon. 

RouviERE  (F.). — Histoire  de  la  Revolution  dans  le  departement 
du  Gard. 

S£e  (H.). — Les  classes  rurales  en  Bretagne  du  xvi'  sikle  d  la 
Revolution.     (Cited  as  S^e,  Classes  rurales.) 

Serres  (J.  B.). — Histoire  de  la  Revolution  en  Auvergne. 

Vermale  (F.). — La  repartition  des  biens  ecclesiastiques. 

ViDAL    (P.). — Histoire  de   la   Revolution   dans   les  Pyrenees 
Orientates. 

ViDAL  DE  LA  Blache. — La  France  de  I'Est. 

Viguier  (J.). — Les  debuts  de  la  Revolution  en  Provence. 


INTRODUCTION 

FUSTEL  DE  COULANGES  in  his  classical  work  on 
the  Origins  of  the  Feudal  System  describes  the 
most  characteristic  feature  of  feudal  society  as 
follows:  "  Thp  soil  is  parcelled  out  into  great  domains"^ 
called  seigneuries.  A  lord  reigns  over  each  of  them,  and 
all  the  folk  of  the  domain  obey  him.  These  men  are 
fudged  by  him  instead  of  by  the  king^or  some  other  public 
authority.  They  pay  taxes  and  owe  military  service  Jo 
him  instead  of  to  the  king.  In  fact,  each  domain,  taken 
in  itself,  resembles  a  petty  state.' L,^  If  to  this  description 
we  add  the  statements  that  the  lord  may  be.  and  often 
i s,  an  ecclesiastical  corporat ion^.^ndlhat .t he_ cultivators 

'of  the  soil  hold  the  land  by  tenures  more  .or  le_ss  servile 

.  I  ^  I   .11     ..  I. . . .  - 

in  character,  we  have  a  brief  but  sufficient  account  of  the 
principal  features  of  the  feudal  system.  To  what  extent 
did  this  system  survive  in  the  France  of  1789  ? 

To  answer  this  question  satisfactorily  we  must  envis- 
age the  matter  from  two  points  of  view,  the  poUtical  and 
the  economic.  Feudnli^^m  had  both  these  aspects,  and 
since  the  degree  of  survival  was  very  different  in  the  two 
cases,  we  must  consider  them  separately.  Let  us  begin 
with  the  political. 

The  history  of  France  from  the  time  when  Hugues 
Capet  assumed  the  crown  till  the  reign  of  Louis  XIV  can 

1  Fustel  de  Coulanges,  Let  origines  du  sysUme  fiodal,  p.  xii. 


xvi    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

be  summarised  in  few  words.     It  is  a  record  of  the  de- 
struction of  political  feudalism  by  the  monarchy.     "  The 
twelve  centuries  of  the  old  regime,"  says  Gabriel  Hano- 
taux,  "  laboured  to  constitute  a  modern  nation  by  the 
restoration  of  the  idea  of  the  State."  ^    When  Louis  le 
Gros  rode  out  from  his  capital  to  suppress  the  plundering 
feudatories  who  haunted  its  environs,  we  may  be  sure 
that  he  was  unconscious  of  the  greatness  of  the  task  to 
which  he  had  set  his  hand  ;   nevertheless,  the  work  was 
begun,  and  under  his  successors  it  never  entirely  ceased 
till  the  day  when,  emerging  from  his  minority,  the  young 
Louis  XIV  might,  with  perfect  truth,  have  used  the 
words  that  tradition  has  put  into  his  mouth,  "  Uetat, 
c'est  moi !  "    This  great  secular  labour  had  been  one  of 
enormous  difficulty.     The  feudal  opposition  to  the  mon- 
_archy  had  taken  many  forms  and  made  many  strange 
alHances.     Sometimes  Protestant  with  the  Huguenots, 
sometimes  CathoUc  with  the  League  ;   sometimes  alHed 
with  England,  sometimes  with  Spain,  but  always  and  in 
essence  the  same,  and  always  pursuing  the  sajne  end — 
the  restoration  of  that  happy  day  when  the  seigneur  had 
_reigned  like  a  king  over  his  domain.      To  break  down 
this  opposition  the  monarchy  had  had  resort  to  every 
weapon   in   its   armoury — diplomacy,   money,    and   the 
sword.     But  broken  down  it  was  at  last.    The  royal  armies 
overthrew  the  feudal  fortresses  ;    the  royal  law-courts 
filched  jurisdiction  from  the  feudal  judges  ;    the  royal 
tax-gatherers  thrust  themselves  between  the  noble  and 
his  vassals.     The  tide  had  fairly  turned  when  Louis  XI 
died  ;   neither  Coligny  nor  the  Guises  could  stem  it,  and 
when  the  great  cardinals  had  broken,  first,  the  Protestants, 
and  then  the  Fronde,  the  issue  was  decided  once  for  all. 

'  Hanotaux  (G.),  La  France  en  1614,  p.  105. 


INTRODUCTION  xvii 

Under  the  inspiration  of  Saint-Simon,  that  fierce  hater 
of  the  upstart  and  usurping  monarchy,  a  last  attempt 
at  reaction  was  made  under  the  Regency.  It  failed, 
and  from  then  till  the  day  when  the  Revolution  trod 
both  Crown  and  nobility  into  the  dust,  the  noblesse 
accepted,  without  a  struggle,  the  order  of  things  which 
decreed  that  the  seigneur  should  be  no  more  than  "  the 
first  inhabitant  of  the  parish."  ^  The  last  vestige  of  his 
ancient  poUtical  power  was  his  rights  of  jurisdiction, 
andliTthe  exerciseTofTh^Jse  ire  was  so  carefully  limited 
and  controlled  that,  as  De  Tocqueville  said,  they  were 
"  less  a  power  than  a  source  of  revenue."  ^ 

But  this  resignation  had  only  been  purchased  at  a 
great  price.  The  nobles  and  their  dependents  were 
exempt  from  the  most  burdensome  of  the  direct  taxes 
which  weighed  so  heavily  upon  the  Third  Estate.  They 
monopolised  the  well-paid  offices  of  the  administration 
in  which  no  active  labour  was  required.  They  figured 
largely  upon  the  pension-Hst.  A  royal  decree,  which 
was  issued  so  late  as  1781,  reserved  the  commissioned 
ranks  in  the  army  to  those  who  could  show  a  certain 
number  of  quarterings  of  nobility.  In  the  same  way, 
the  higher  offices  of  the  Church  had  become  the  close 
preserve  of  men  of  rank.  After  1783,  not  one  holder  of 
the  135  French  bishoprics  and  archbishoprics  was  of 
plebeian  origin.^  Not  all  the  members  of  the  noble  class, 
of  course,  profited  by  this  golden  manna.  There  was  a 
great  gulf  fixed  between  the  noblesse  de  cour  and  the 
noblesse  de  campagne  ;  between  the  Rohans,  the  Lian- 
courts,  the  Polignacs,  and  those  impoverished  nobles 
whom  Arthur  Young  found  subsisting  on  fifty  and  even 

^  Tocqueville,  p.  36.  '  Ibid.  p.  37. 

'  Lavisse,  Histoire  de  France,  vol.  ix.  (i)  p.  148. 


xviii    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

twenty-five  louis  a  year,  in  the  Rouergue.^  Some  of 
this  latter  class,  indeed,  lived  the  lives  of  peasants.  When 
the  nobles  of  Poitou  met  in  March  1789  to  elect  their 
representatives  to  the  States-General,  "  seven  gentlemen 
were  present  at  the  assembly  dressed  like  peasants.  None 
of  them  had  a  sword  at  his  side.  The  commissioners 
appointed  by  the  order  of  the  nobility  procured  arms 
for  them  and  paid  their  bills  at  the  hotel.  When  ques- 
tioned, these  gentlemen  said  that  their  daughters  worked 
in  the  farmyard,  made  the  bread,  and  kept  sheep  in  the 
fields."  ^  Nevertheless,  the  generalisation  holds  good 
that  the  monarchy  had,  in  part,  purchased  the  resigna- 
tion of  the  nobles  to  their  loss  of  political  power  by  hand- 
ing over  to  them  financial  privileges  and  a  monopoly 
of  the  higher  offices  in  Church  and  State.  In  part,  be 
it  said,  for  that  was  not  the  whole  of  the  bargain.  In 
it  we  must  include  the  fact  that,  while  their  political 
power  had  been  broken,  the  economic  power  of  the  nobles 
had  been  maintained  and  even  strengthened,  since  the 
obligations  of  which  it  had  been  the  price  were>  no  longer 
fulfilled.  In  1789,  the  ban  and  arriere-ban  had  not  been 
called  out  for  a  century.  As  Boiteau  picturesquely  says, 
the  nobility  "  for  a  hundred  years  had  had  only  a  wooden 
sword  at  its  side.^  Political  feudalism,  then,  was  dead  ; 
economic  feudaUsm  was  living  and  vigorous,  and  it  is 
with  a  detailed  description  of  this  last  that  we  must 
commence  our  inquiry, 

^  Young,  29  July  and  19  August  1787.      For  the  poor  noblesse  of 
Brittany,  see  See,  Classes  rurales,  pp.  27-30. 

2  Proces-verbal  of  the  Assembly,  in  Kovalewsky,  vol.  i.  p.  9. 
^  Boiteau,  p.  34. 


THE    FALL    OF    FEUDALISM 
IN    FRANCE 


\ 


THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM 
IN  FRANCE 

CHAPTER    I 

FEUDALISM  IN  1789 

THE  economic  organisation  of  France  in  the 
Middle  Ages  has  been  studied  and  described  by 
an  admirable  band  of  scholars — Dehsle,  Luchaire 
Seignobos,  and  Henri  See,  and  an  attentive  study  of 
their  works  gives  us  an  idea  of  the  system  which,  though 
obscure  as  to  certain  details,  is  fully  adequate  for  the 
purpose  of  this  inquiry.  The  EngHsh  student  of  economic 
history  who  knows  his  Seebohm,  Ashley,  and  Vinogradoff, 
will  have  no  difficulty  in  recognising  that  the  essential 
f e atures  of  the  mediaeval  land  system  were  the  same  on 
hq\yi  ^\^os  of  the  fhnnnel.  In  what  follows,  only  those 
features  are  summarily  described. 

The  territory  was  divided  into  seigneuries  or  (to  use 
the  best  Fnghsh  equivalent)  manors.  These  were  the 
p(;.nn(;^jpir  units  which  went  to  make  up  the  s\:&t£iiL-as  a 
vyhole.  At  the  heajUj  each  was  a  seigneur,  a  lord,  who 
held  his  estate  from  the  king,  mediately  or  immediately. 
by  the  rendering  of  certain  services  which  we  need 
not  stay  to  consider.  He  was  the  pivot,  as  it  were,  on 
which  the  whole  organisation  of  the  manor  tnmpd.  The 
land  of  which  this  last  consisted  wa'^  divided  into  two 
main  portions  :  the  lord's  land  or  domain,  and  their 
holdings  of  his  tenants.  It  is  with  the  status  and  con-  ^ 
ditions  of  tenure  of  the  latter  that  we  are  most  concerned. 


2      THS  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

The  tenant  was  usual!},  a  serf.  ^  In  strict  law,  he  was 
little  better  than  a  sjave,  witlTout  personal  property  or  t 
bodily  freedom,  but  his  condition  was,  in  fact,  mitigated 
at  once  by  the  self-interest  and  the  religious  scruples 
of  his  lord.  But  he  was  not  free  to  corn e  and  go,  or  to 
choosehis  ernployments  at  his  own  will  j  he  could  not 
even  marry  when  or  whom  he  would. ^  He  might^be^ 
tolerably  secure  in  the^  enjoyment  of  his  holding,  for 
labour  was  scarce,  and  it  was^  to  the  lord's  interest  to 
concede  some  fixity  of  t enure  j^  nevertheless,  the  tenant 
held  only  at  his  superior's  pleasure.  When  he  died,  his 
heir  or  widow  might  be  admitted  to  the  hoMihg  in  Tiis 
steady  but  this  was  legally  an  act  of  grace,  only  to  be 
purchased  by  payment  of  a  heavyjfine.'* 

The  actual  conditions  of  the  serf's  tenure,  were 
sufficiently  onerous.  He  was  bound  to  work  for  so 
many  days  in  each  week  upon  the  lord's  domain,  usin^ 
his  own  plough  and  team,  and  to  do  harvest  work  ox 
carting  when  required  ;  in  addition,  he  had  usually  to_^ 
ipake  ^ayrnents  jn  money  or  kind,  as  a  ^iipplemept  to 
this  corvee  or  lab9yr  .i^^nt.^  There  were  a^q_jcasual 
charges,  levied  upon  special  occasions,  and  the  lerd  had  •> 
usually  the  right  to  tallage  his  men  at  will.  Nor  were 
these  the  only  servitudes  which  weighed  upon  the 
peasant.  He  could  not  grind  his  corn  at  any  mill  he 
chose,  or  bake  his  bread  in  his  own  oven.^  or  press  his 
grapes  in  his  own  winepress.  .  .The  seigneur  had  a 
monopoly  of  all  these  necessary  instruments  of  produc- 

1  "  It  is  certain  that  the  serfs  .  .  .  could  not  marry  without  their 
master's  authorisation ;  this  was  necessary,  even  when  they  rirarried 
persons  living  on  the  same  domain  and  belonging  to  the  same  lord." 
See,  Moyen  Age,  p.  71. 

*  "  Possession  of  the  tenure  was  quite  precarious  ;  the  lord  could 
revoke  it  at  will.  It  is  well  understood,  a  priori,  that  if  the  serf  die 
without  children,  his  land  falls  once  more  under  the  direct  domination 
of  the  proprietor."     See,  Moyen  Age,  p.  73. 

'  "  The  corvl-es  weigh  upon  the  peasants  without  distinction.  .  .  . 
One  of  the  most  important  is  the  obligation  to  till  the  lord's  fields." 
See,  Moyen  Age,  p.  83. 


FEUDALISM  IN  1789  S 

tion.  a  monopoly  which  he  had  both  will  and  power 
strictly  to  enforce.  Finally,  the  lord  w-as  the  tenant's 
natural  judge.  One  of  the  most  important  results  of 
the  break-up  of  the  Roman  state-system  had  been  the 
denationahsation  of  justice,  which  had,  for  the  most 
part,  become  private  property,  and  remained  so,  to  some 
extent,  till  the  Revolution  came  to  make  all  things  new. 
The  .k)Td  had  now^  his  own  gallows  and  prison,  and 
executed  judgment,  often  very  terrible  judgment,  upon 
the  vile  bodies  of  his  tenants. 

Such,  in  broadest  outline,  was  the  land-system  of 
mediaeval  France.  We  have  now  to  discover  how  much 
of  that  system  survived  in  1789. 

One  feature,  at  any  rate,  had  not  disappeared.  France 
was  still  parcelled  out  into  sei^neuries  or  manors.*"  Over 
a  great  part  of  the  territory  the  old  legal  rule  still  held 
good — "  no  land  without  a  lord."  But  the  status  and 
powers  of  these  lords  had  declined,  as  we  have  seen, 
whilst  those  of  the  cultivators  had  improved.  Serfdom, 
in  the  mediaeval  sense  of  the  word,  had  practically 
vanished,  and  the  peasant  had  now  become  either  a 
proprietor  or  a  free  tenant-farmer,  but  in  either  case 
he  was  still  subjected  to  a  mass  of  obhgations  towards 
his  lord  which  were  direct  survivals  from  the  feudal 
age.  These  seigneurial  rights  differed  widely  from 
province  to  province,  but  we  can  roughly  divide  them 
into  four  main  groups  :  ^  {a)  servitudes  attaching  to 
persons  or  properties  which  may"  be  regarded  as  the 
most  obvious  rehcs  of  serfdom  ;  (6)  payments  or  seryic_£5. 
rp^pHered  in  mnnev  or  in  kind  rhnrf^pH  upon  the  land 
held  by  the  cultivator  ;  (c)  ^eigneurial  monopolies  of 
various  kinds  ;  {d)  the  rights  of  jurisdiction  still  exercised 
by  the  noble  class.  We  may  begin  our  description  of 
feudaUsm  in  1789  with  a  discussion  of  the  first  of  these 
groups. 

As  has  been  said,  serfdom,  in  the  full  significance  of 

'  Cf.  Sagnac,  p.  32. 


4       THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

the  word,  had  practically  disappeared  from  France, 
though  it  existed  in  all  its  rigour  in  other  parts  of  Europe. 
From  some  provinces  it  had  vanished  at  a  very  early 
period ;  irom  Normandy,  for  example,  by  the  thirteenth 
century.  Not  only  was  the  peasant  personally  free, 
but  his  political  status  had  risen,  and  he  now  conducted 
much  of  his  communal  business  independently  of  the 
seigneur.  Nevertheless,  in  certain  provinces,  t,eiiiires  of 
a  distinctly  servile  character  still  existed  in  1789.  Most 
important  of  these  was  the  mainmorte,  the  "dead  hand." 
The  mainmorte  of  the  Middle  Ages  Jjas  been  ^de- 
scrij)ed  as  J'  a^  right  of  succession  in  vijtue  of  which  t^je  . 
seigneur  inherits  the  property  of  the  serf  who  dies 
without  children  ]i\'ing  in  community  with  him  :  for  ,^, 
the  serf  it  involves  the  obligation  not  to  alienate  his 
tenure  :  to  give  or  sell  it  would  be  to  deprive  the  pro-  . 
prietor  of  a  future  inheritance."  ^  In  the  latter  part 
of  the  eighteenth  century,  though  remaining  in  essence 
the   same,  mainmorte  was   classified   into   two   species : 

"  personal."    which    weighed upon     individuals^    and 

"  real,"  which  attached  to  land.  This  distinction,  how- 
ever, was  of  jtheoretical.  rather  than  of  practic;^!^  iwipm-t- 
ancCj^and  would  seem  to  have  arisen  from  the  manner 
in  which  persons  became  subject  to_this  right.  Sorne 
inherited  it  from  their  parents  ;  they  w^re  born  into .  a 
.servile  status.  Others  acquired  it  by  the  __occup_atig)n  ^ 
of  a  servile  tenure  for  a  specified  period,  such  as  a  year 
and  a  day.^  But,  to  quote  a  writer  who  has  discussed 
this  difficult  question  in  detail,- "  there  was  in  reality 
no  great  difference  between  the  two  conditions.  .  .  . 
The  sources  disclose  no  fundamental  distinction  between 
the  two  groups  of  serfs  as  to  their  rights,  and  between 
the  two  classes  of  lands,  as  to  the  charges  W'eighing 
upon  them."  ^  For  our  purpose  it  is  more  important 
to  note  the  disabilities  attaching  to  the  condition.     In 

1  See,  Moyen  Age'jp.  178.  *  Kareiew,  p.  ig  et  seq. 

■  Ibid.  p.  24. 


FEUDALISM  IN  1789  5 

its  extreme  form,  these  were  very  onerous.  A  striking 
example  is  provided  by  the  case  of  the  peasants  who 
held  lands  from  the  Abbey  of  Luxeuil.  Thev  were 
compelled  to  reside  on  the  estate,  and  could  not  go  else- 
where without  the  lord  abbot's  express  consent  ;  if. 
when  they  died,  their  children  were  not  living  in  com- 
munity with  thpm  their  Innds  reverted  to  the  lord,  apd. 
contrary  to  the  custom  prevaihng  in  the  rest  of  the 
province  of  Franche-Comte,  women  who  married  outside 
the  lordship  could  not  retain  their  right  of  inheritance 
by  spending  their  wedding-night  under  the  parental 
raof  ;  parents  could  not  inherit  lands  from  their  children 
if  these  died  without  heirs  ;  and,  finally,  the  unfortunate 
beings  could  not  enfranchise  themselves  by  abandoning 
their  tenures,  another  restriction  which  was  exceptional 
in  the  province^^^ 

Such  conditions  were  peculiarly  oppressive,  but  this 
instance  does  not  stand  alone.  In  their  statement 
of  grievances  drawn  up  in  1789  the  peasants  of  Saint- 
Pierre-le-Moutier  (Nivernais)  speak  of  "  the  slavish 
mainmorte  .  .  .  thanks  to  which  the  serfs  can  neither  be- 
queath their  land,  nor  change  their  dwelling-places,  nor 
choose  their  occupations  at  will  "  :  which  "admits besides 
of  the  partition  of  these  wretched  people  like  cattle, 
when  their  fathers  belong  to  one  manor  and  their  mothers 
to  another."  2  There  were  peasants  in  Burgundy  who 
could  neither  give  nor  bequeath  their  holdings,^  and 
Kareiew  considers  that  inability  to  dispose  of  land 
without  the  lord's  consent  was  a  feature  common  to 
all  forms  of  mainmorte.*  A  circumstance  apparently 
mitigating  these  hardships  was  that,  in  legal  theory,  the 
man  who  was  not  mainmortable  by  birth  but  who  held 
servile  land,  could  enfranchise  himself  at  will  by  abandon- 
ing his  holding.  But  it  is  obvious  that  this  privilege 
was  quite  illusory.     How  was  the  peasant  to  live  when 

>  Finot,  1880.  *  Quoted  by  Kar6iew,  p.  24. 

•  Ibid.  p.  23  note.  *  Ibid.  p.  22. 


6      THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

he  had  given  up  his  land  ?  In  Burgundy,  moreover,  he 
was  obhged  to  surrender  one,  or  sometimes  two-thirds 
of  his  moveable  property  in  addition.^  Under  these 
circumstances  we  cannot  regard  as  exaggerated  the 
complaint  of  a  contemporary  that  "  he  (the  main- 
mortahle)  is  permitted  to  live  at  liberty  provided  that  he 
dies  of  hunger."  ^ 

How  many  persons  suffered  under  these  servile  con- 
ditions in  1789  ?  That,  unfortunately,  is  a  question 
that  cannot  be  answered  with  precision.  Mainmorie, 
pyoperly  speaking,  seems  to  havp  pYi^tpd  only  in  rprtain 
of  the  provinces  of  the  East  and  Centre,  namely.  Franche- 
Comte.  Berry.  Burgundy,  and  Marche ;  but  in  both 
Berry  and  the  Bourbonnais  a  class  of  peasants  known  as 
pnrdie.ra  wer^  subjected  to  a  similar  servitude.  They 
could  only  transmit  their  holdings  to  their  heirs,  even  in 
direct  line  of  descent,  if  these  were  actually  living  with 
.  them  at  the  moment  of  death.  "Other  dispositions 
not  less  rigorous  were  attached  to  this  tenure.  Thenon- 
paynient  of ^jies  tor  jthree  years  led  to  its  confiscation 
.to  the  profit, oX_the^g?g^gi^jr.^ '  ^  This  right  of  hprdelage 
may  certainly  be  classed, wjth.  that  of  mainmorie  in  con- 
sMering  the  different  figures  which  have  been  put  forward 
in  regard  to  this  question.  Clerget.  writing  in  1789, 
declared  that  there  were  a  million  and  a  half  mainmort- 
ables  in  France,  and  this  statement  has  often  been  un- 
critically repeated.*  But  Clerget  gave  no  proofs  of  his 
assertion,  which,  indeed,  bears  obvious  marks  of  ex- 
aggeration. Boncerf,  a  much  better  authority,  writing 
at  the  same  period,  speaks  of  300,000.  This  seems  more 
reasonable  on  the  face  of  it,  but  the  only  definite  figures 
available  are  those  given  by  M.  Jules  Finot  in  the  article 

^  Kareiew,  p.  23  note. 

*  The  Abbe  Clerget,  La  Cri  de  la  raison,  1789. 
»  M^ge,  p.  64. 

*  Its   most  recent  appearance  is  in  an  otherwise  excellent  article 
in  the  Economic  Journal,  March  1919. 


FEUDALISM  IN  1789  7 

previously  cited,  who  says  that  in  the  twenty-seven 
villages  held  by  the  Abbey  of  Luxeuil  and  the  Priory  of 
Fontaine,  there  were  11,121  mainmortahle  inhabitants. 
M.  Aulard,  the  latest  authority  to  study  the  question, 
contents  himself  with  the  cautious  statement  that  "  it 
cannot  be  denied  that  there  were  serfs  at  the  epoch  of 
Louis  XVI,  and  that  there  were  many  of  them,  that  is 
to  say,  thousands  and  thousands."  ^  To  this,  in  the 
present  state  of  our  knowledge  of  the  matter,  nothing  of 
value  can  be  added. 

The  condition  of  these  gens  de  mainmorte  had  attracted 
much  attention  during  the  years  immediately  preceding 
the  Revolution.  The  existence  of  such  a  relic  of  the 
Dark  Ages  was  felt  to  Be^  a  shocking  anachronism  in  a 
period  which  prided  Ttself  on  its  enlightenment.  Vol- 
taire's campaign  on  behalf  of  the  unhappy  peasants  of 
the  Jura,  held  in  dead  hand  by  the  monks  of  Saint- 
Claude,  is  well  known,  and  it  set  on  foot  a  movement  of 
which  the  last  stages  form  the  subject  of  this  book. 
Boncerf's  little  tract  of  1776,  on  the  abuses  of  feudalism, 
helped  the  current  of  reforming  opinion,  even  though  it 
was  suppressed  by  legal  authority.  Turgot,  as  we  know, 
had  a  scheme  for  the  progressive  extinction  of  economic 
feudalism  which  would,  incidentally,  have  abolished 
mainmorte,  but  he  fell  from  power  before  it  could  be  put 
into  execution.  In  1779,  however,  Louis  XVI,  inspired 
by  Necker,  issued  a  famous  edict  wBicTi  swept  away  this 
rehc  of  serfdom  from  the  royal  domain.  The  preamble 
of  HieTaw  states  that  the  king  would  have  wished  to  put 
an  end  to  it  throughout  the  realm,  but  was  restrained 
by  regard  for  the  rights  of  property  on  the  one  hand, 
and  the  poverty  of  the  exchequer,  which  forbade  any 
measure  of  compensation,  on  the  other.  He  did,  how- 
ever, destroy  one  glaring  abuse  :  the  so-called  "  right 
of  pursuit,"  "  in  virtue  of  which,"  says  the  edict, 
"lords  of   fiefs   have   sometimes  pursued  into  the  free 

^  Aulard,  p.  ii. 


8       THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

territories  of  the  realm,  and  even  into  our  capital, 
the  properties  and  acquisitions  of  citizens  who  have 
lived  outside  the  place  of  their  servitude  for  many  years, 
an  exorbitant  right,  which  the  tribunals  have  hesitated 
to  recognise,  and  one  of  which  the  principles  of  social 
justice  forbid  us  to  permit  the  survival."  Finally,  the 
edict  expresses  the  hope  that  the  royal  example  will  be 
generally  followed. 

It  would  be  interesting  to  know  to  what  extent  this 
hope  was  realised,  but  here,  again,  precise  information 
is  lacking. 1  What  can  be  positively  affirmed  is  that 
there  was  no  general  movement  of  emancipation.  The 
Parliament  of  Franche-Comte  refused  to  register  the 
edict  until  October  1788,  thus  making  its  provisions  of 
doubtful  legal  effect  in  that  province  ;  the  monks  of 
Saint-Claude,  as  heedless  of  the  king's  example  as  they 
had  been  of  Voltaire's  agitation,  still  hardened  their 
hearts  and  refused  to  set  their  people  free.  Clermont 
Tonnerre,  the  Abbot  of  Luxeuil,  made  a  valiant  effort  to 
release  the  serfs  on  the  abbey's  lands.  He  had  raised 
the  question  as  early  as  1775,  in  a  memorial  to  the  royal 
council  which  forcibly  described  the  apathy,  poverty, 
and  economic  loss  which  were  the  consequences  of  the 
right  of  mainmorte.  A  few  sentences  deserve  to  be  quoted. 
"In  the  thirty  years,"  he  wrote,  "  during  which  the 
petitioner  has  ruled  over  this  abbey,  he  has  seen  nothing 
but  heavy,  indolent,  discouraged  and  dejected  men, 
lands  left  uncultivated,  culture  absolutely  neglected, 
no  commerce,  no  emulation,  and  a  general  apathy.  .  .  . 
Mainmorte,  then,  is  at  once  destructive  of  agriculture, 
of  manufactures,  and  of  commerce  ;  it  is  revolting  to 
humanity  ;  it  annihilates  human  existence.  By  reducing 
a  part  of  His  Majesty's  subjects  to  a  kind  of  insupportable 
slavery  in  a  free  kingdom,  it  humiliates  and  crushes  them, 
and  renders  them,  to  some  extent,  incapable  of  action  ; 

1  See  the  interesting  discussion  of  this  point  in  M.  Aulard's  work, 
p.  18  et  seq. 


FEUDALISM  IN  1789  9 

it  is  an  obstacle  to  marriage  and  tends  to  depopulation, 
either  because  those  who  languish  under  its  yoke  refuse 
to  reproduce  their  slavish  race,  or  by  reason  of  the  emi- 
gration of  inhabitants,  fatigued  by  the  servitude  under 
which  they  groan  ;  in  short,  mainmorte  may  be  regarded 
as  a  scourge  to  the  State.  The  seigneurs  themselves,  in 
the  districts  where  this  servitude  still  exists,  lose  much 
more  by  the  lack  of  culture  of  the  lands  of  their  estates 
than  they  gain  by  the  escheats,  reversions  and  other 
casual  dues  attached  to  the  right  of  mainmorte  ;  the 
inheritances  are  despoiled  ;  the  mainmortahles,  who  have 
nothing  but  a  miserable  life  to  regret  and  nothing  to 
lose,  give  themselves  up  to  all  kinds  of  excesses  ;  main- 
morte is  a  source,  as  abundant  as  it  is  continual,  of  law- 
suits and  contests,  as  burdensome,  expensive  and  ruinous 
for  the  seigneurs  as  for  their  subjects."  ^  But  the  good 
abbot's  eloquence  and  humanitarian  zeal  could  not  pre- 
vail against  the  apathy  of  the  bureaucracy.  In  spite 
of  the  edict,  his  plans  for  the  enfranchisement  of  his 
gens  de  mainmorte  had  not  received  the  necessary  royal 
sanction  when  the  Revolution  began,  and  the  peasants 
of  Luxeuil  were  still  mainmortahles  in  1789.  We  shall 
meet  them  and  their  abbot  again  in  the  course  of  this 
history. 

These  facts  go  to  prove  that  there  was  no_widespread 
movement  of  liberation  following  on  the  royal  exarnple, 
and,  if  we  may  ju(fge  by  the  details  of  two  cases  known 
to  us,  enfranchisement,  when  it  occurred,  was  sometimes 
dearly  bought.  The  inhabitants  of  Pusey,  in  Franche- 
Comte,  procured  their  freedom  from  mainmorte  and 
certain  other  vexatious  charges  b}-  the  payment  of  a  sum 
of  50,000  livres  and  the  cession  of  a  meadow  The  in- 
habitants of  La  Marche  and  La  Rougere,  in  the  province 
of  Marche,  obtained  their  freedom  from  servitude  in  1788 
by  the  payment  of  2526  livres  to  the  Prior  of  Nouzier. 
"  It  was  squeezing  misery  itself,"  they  said,  "  but  the 

>  Finot.  1880. 


10    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

state  of  slavery  in  which  they  were  held  had  become 
insupportable  to  them."  ^  As  M.  Aulard  drily  remarks, 
"  it  seems  that  sometimes,  however  philanthropic  they 
might  be,  the  seigneurs  encouraged  enfranchisement  as 
a  means  of  procuring  pecuniary  resources  or  an  increase 
of  landed  property."  ' 

Before  proceeding  to  the  next  division  of  the  subject 
we  must  notice  that  mainmorte  and  bordelage  were  not 
the  only  rehcs  of  serfdom  that  still  sur\dved  in  1789. 
In  some  parts  of  Brittany  a  tenure  known  as  qiievaise^^ 
resembled  them  very  closely.  If  the  qucvaisicr  dieS^^ith- 
out  direct  heirs  living  in  community  with  him,  his  holding 
reverted,  tp  the  lord,  and  he  could  not_  sell,, concede,  or 
.alienate  it  without  the  latter's  express_CQns£nt. ^  This>« 
like  mainmorte,  was  clearly  a  survival  from  the  time 
when  the  peasant  had  no  true^operty^  of  his  own.  The 
fact  that,  at  the  same  period,  he  could  not  marry  when 
J  he  wished  and  was  taxable  at  his  lord's  will,  obviously 
accounts  for  other  burdens  which  we  find  weighing  upon 
persons  in  1789.^  The,  restriction  upon  freedom  of  mar- 
riage bad  been  reduced  to  the  payment  of  a  mnnpy  fine  ._ 
at  an  early  date,  and  this  obligp^tion.  usn^^lly  known  as 
formariage,  had  survived  in  certain  provinces.,,  such  as 
Franche-Comte,"^  Brittany,  and  Auvergne,  In  the  parish 
of  Caulnes  (Brittany),  "  each  young  man  who  marries 
during  the  year  must  pay  12  sols  for  his  wife,  who  is 
herself  obliged  to  dance  for  the  amusement  of  the  seigneur 
or  his  agents."  ^  Elsewhere,  the  newly-married  were 
obliged  to  present  the  lord  with  gloves,  or  play  at  quintain, 
or  leap  a  stream,  or  submit  to  "  other  usages  as  insulting 
as  they  are  absurd."  '     In  one  district  of  Auvergne  a 

^  Sagnac  and  Caron,  p.  452.  '  Aulard,  p.  36. 

*  See,  Classes  rurales,  pp.  12-21. 

*  In  medieval  France,  subjection  to  these  rights  was  a  characteristic 
sign  of  servile  status.     Cf.  See,  Moyen  Age,  p.  175. 

^  Kar6iew,  p.  25. 

*  S6e  and  Lesort,  vol.  iii.  p.  225. 

^  Champion,  p.  140;  Dupont,  p.  73. 


FEUDALISM  IN  1789  11 

due  known  as  corsage  was  levied  on  the  peasant  when 
his  daughter  married  or  his  son  entered  holy  orders  ;   on 
one   manor  this   obHgation   received   an   extraordinary 
extension,  for  there  the  holder  of  land  paid,  not  only  in 
t,hp  two  rases  mentioned,  but  also  when  his  nie<fe.  sister, 
Qi  f  eqiale  cousin  married  J  ^     To  the  serf's  lack  of  personal 
ireedom  we  must  also,  no  doubt,  ascribe  the  origin  of 
the  rights  of  bienvenue  and  chef-feu,  of  which  we  find 
examples  in  Champagne  and  Quercy  respectively.     The 
first  was  levied  on  every  newcomer  to  the  manor,  on  tho§e 
who  took  wives  from  thence,  and  on  women  who  came 
there  to  marry.     These  two  last  categories  paid  only 
half  as  much  as  the  first. ^    The  right  of   chef-feu  may 
best  be  described  by  quoting  the  complaint  of   the  in- 
habitants of  Artix  who  actually  paid  it.     "  The  seigneur, 
they  wTote  in  1789,  "  exacts  from  this  community  a  due 
called  chef-feu  which  appears  to  be  the  most  unjust  of 
charges  and  one  which  recalls  the  ancient  servitude  of 
the  Gauls  ;   it  consists  of  a  levy  of  three  liyy^^  '^even  .snZ.s 
made  upon  each  head  of  a  household  for  thf  «;imp1e  right 
of  Uving  in  the  parish.     It  is  paid  by  simple  labourers 
who  do  not  own  a  hand's  breadth  of  land,  and  is  exacted 
from  them  with  as  much  rigour    as    from   the  richest 
tenants."  ^    The  survival  of  tallage  at  will  is  illustrated 
by  the  statement  of  grievances  drawn  up  in  1789  by  the 
inhabitants  of  Essey-les-Nancy,  in  Lorraine,  which  men- 
tions "  a  right  called  charte  by  the  lord's  agent  ...  by 
virtue  of  which  absurd  title  the  lord  has  power  tn  tax  us 
at  will ;  this  charge  varies  from  100  to  124  francs  for  the 
Haut  Chateau,  and  from  50  to  44  francs  for  the  Chateau 
Bas."  *      Finally,    to   complete   this   section,    we   must 
note  the  p^sistence  of  the  right  of  demanding  sworn 
faith  and  homage.     M.  Champion  mentions  an  instance 
of  this  in  Provence  where  a  seigneur  compelled  the  parish 
priest  and  more  than  three  hundred  proprietors,  kneeling 

'  M^e,  pp.  92-3.  '  Por6e,  p.  287  note. 

•  Fourastdfe,  p.  14.  *  Mathieu,  p.  313. 


12    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

bare-headed  before  him,  to  take  an  oath  of  allegiance  on 
the  Scriptures.^ 

To  turn  now  to  the  second  category  of  feudal  obliga- 
tions, that  is,  payments  or  services,  rendered  in  money 
or  in  kind,  and  charged  upon  the  land  held  by  the  culti- 
vator. 

In  the  early  Middle  Ages  the  principal  service  rendere(^ 
bv_the  tenant  to  his  lord  was  compulsory  labour  on  the 
la^ter's  domain,  a  species  of  rent  which,  owing  to  the- 
scarcity  of  workers  and  of  money,  formed  an  indispensable 
item  in  the  manorial  economy.  But  with  the  progress 
of  civilisation  and  of  the  peasant's  enfranchisement , 
these  corvees.  as  they  were  called,  were  increasingly  com- 
muted for  fixed  payments  in  money  or  in  kind,  known 
as  cens  or  censives.  Sometimes^  thij^  rent  took  the_form 
of  a  specified  share  of  the  produce  of  the  land,  when  it 
was  known  as  champart,  ierrage,  or  tierce.  In  the  majority 
of  cases  it  would  seem  that  the  ce^s;  included  payments 
both  in  money  and  in  produce.  The  Abbey  of  Hambye, 
for  example,  received  from  nine  peasants  in  the  parish 
of  Lengronne  ii6|  demeaux  [a  local  measure]  of  wheat, 

10  fowls,  2  capons,  lo  loaves,  98  eggs,  and  2  livres,  7  sols, 
7  denier s  in  money. ^  The  amount  of  these  rents  varied 
infinitely  from  manor  to  manor  in  1789  ;  in  many  cases 
they  had  not  altered  for  a  century  or  more,  and  the  fall 
in  the  value  of  money  had  greatly  reduced  the  importance 
of  that  portion  of  them  which  was  actually  paid  in  coin.^ 
It  must  not  be  assumed,  however,  that  this  stationary 
condition  was  universal.  In  1585,  to  take  only  one 
example  of  the  contrary  tendency,  the  parish  of  Pierre- 
Moraine,  in  Champagne,  paid  68  bushels  of  grain  to  its 
seigneur  ;  by  1608  this  charge  had  increased  to  1268 
bushels  and  11  capons  ;   in  1666  it  was  1854  bushels  and 

11  capons  ;    in  1735  it  rose  to  3000  bushels,  at  which 

^  Champion,  p.  140  note.  ^  Bridrey,  vol.  i.  p.  399  note. 

'  See,  Classes  rurales,  p.  93,  quotes  a  number  of  cases  where  rents 
had  varied  very  slightly  or  not  at  all  between  1622  and  1785. 


FEUDALISM  IN  1789  18 

figure  it  stood  in  1789.^  Nor,  of  course,  does  the  above 
remark  appl}'  to  the  cham^rts^he  real  value  of  which 
increased  along  with  the  rise  in  the  price  of  food  which 
was  so  marked  ill  Trance  in  the  latter  part  of  the  eigh- 
teenth century.  This  due  was  unquestionably  much 
niore  Jburdensome ^n  its  incidence  than  the_  cens.  It 
varied  in  amount  according  to  the  custom  of  the  locality  ; 
cases  are  to  be  found  where  it  was  as  low  as  one-thirteenth 
of  the  crop  ;  in  others  it  was  as  high  as  one-third.'  But 
apart  from  its  amount,  the  holder  of  land  subjected  to 
this  right  suffered  from  vexatious  restrictions  on  his 
liberty  of  action ;  to  protect  the  lord's  interests,  the 
peasants  were  often  forbidden  to  change  their  methods 
of  culture,  to  sell  or  hypothecate  their  land  without  the 
former's  consent.  Renauldon,  an  eighteenth  century 
writer  on  feudal  law^  states  that  "  the  possessor  oj  land 
which  is  subject  to  terrace  is  not  only  unable  to  sell  it 
without  the  lord's  consent,  but  cannot  even  pledge  or 
l;i3'pothecate  it..  There  are  many  customs  [local  feudal 
codes]  which  permit  the  lord  to  enter  into  possession 
of  the  projTiprtyjwhenit  has  b^e^  nncnltivntqt;!  for  three 
years  and  a  month.  There  are  others  which  forbid  the 
changing  of  the  crop  on  land  subject  to  terrace  without 
the  lord's  consent."  ^  The  very  nature  of  the  charge 
tended  directly  towards  bad  cultivation,  since  the  harder 
the  peasant  worked  and  the  more  he  produced,  the  larger 
was  the  share  of  his  harvest  claimed  by  the  lord.  It 
was  a  general  rule,  also,  that  the  cultivator  could  not 
reap  his  crops  till  the  lord's  agents  had  levied  the  champart 
on  the  fields  :  the  carelessness  or  spit  (  if  the  lattir  might 
result  in  the  ruin  of  the  whole  harvest  through  bad 
weather.  The  injurious  results  of  this  right  are  well 
describedin  a  petition  of  the  inhabitants  of  Saint-Maurice- 
sur-Fessard,   in   the   Orleanais.     "  The   levying   of   this 

*  Laurent,  p.  .J98.  *  S6e,  Classes  rurales,  p.  86. 

•  Renauldon,   Traite    historique  et  pratique  des  droits  seigneuriaux, 
1765.  P-  179- 


14    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

charge,"  they  write,  "  is  burdensome,  since  it  compels 
the  vassal  to  deliver  the  product  to  the  seigneur ;  he 
must  even  carry  it  to  him  before  removing  what  remains 
in  his  fields,  and  he  cannot  do  so  till  the  lord  or  his  agent 
has  come  to  count  it  on  the  spot.  But  the  person  charged 
with  the  collection  of  this  due  has  often  to  oversee  five 
or  six  parishes,  or  even  more,  and  he  cannot  be  every- 
where at  once  ;  the  waiting  peasant  dare  not  remove  his 
own  grain,  because  he  runs  the  risk  of  having  as  many 
suits  brought  against  him  as  there  are  parcels  of  land 
subject  to  this  right.  A  heavy  rain  falls,  the  grain 
germinates,  the  straw  rots  ;  this  misfortune  happens 
only  too  frequently  and  totally  discourages  the  cultivator, 
so  that  he  takes  but  little  account  of  land  which  owes 
champart.  He  neglects  to  enrich  it,  obtains  scarcely 
anything  from  it,  and  spends  all  his  labour  on  soil  which 
is  exempt."  ^ 

Other  regular  payments  exacted  in  several  provinces 
were  for  commutations  of  the  duty  of  "  watch  and  ward," 
and  for  sauvegarde  or  military  protection.  Both  were 
yelics  of  a  violent  age,  when  vassals  owed^rmed  service 
to  their  superiors  and  received  their  aid  in  troubled  rimes. 
Examples  of  such  survivals  were  to  be  found  in  Brittany, 
Auvergne,  Alsace,  Lorraine,  Hainaut,  Flanders,  and 
Artois.*  In  certain  Breton  manors  a  species  of  annual 
chimney-tax  was  levied  on  each  tenement ;  the  inhabit- 
ants of  Guithen  complained  in  1789  that  they  paid  "  six 
bushels  of  wheat  and  a  fowl  per  chimney,"  a  charge  equal 
to  eighteen  livres  for  a  house  that  let  at  three  !  Under 
these  circumstances  it  is  not  surprising  that  villages  were 
deserted.^ 

It  must  be  remembered  that  for  many  of  these  charges 
there   was   "solidarity"   between   the  holders  of  seig- 

^  Sagnac  and  Caron,  p.  419. 

-  M^ge,  pp.  84  and  104  ;  also  Mathieu,  p.  316,  and  S6e,  Classes 
rurales,  p.  106. 

»  S6e,  Classes  rurales,  p.  99. 


FEUDALISM  IN  1789  15 

neurial  land,  that  is,  the  payments  were  collective,  which 
meant,  of  course,  that  the  solvent  paid  for  the  insolvent 
or  dishonest.  We  read  of  communities  where  half  the 
inhabitants  were  mined  by  reason  of  this  solidarity.^ 
A  striking  picture  of  its  consequences  is  given  in  the 
cahier  of  Saint- Jean-de-Bere.  "  Almost  everywhere  there 
is  solidarity  for  pa}Tnent  of  the  feudal  rents,  and  their 
distribution  gives  rise  to  innumerable  disputes.  Peter 
owes  the  sixty-fourth  part  of  a  measure  of  oats,  the  thirty- 
second  part  of  a  fowl,  the  twelfth  of  a  denier,  etc.  The 
peasants  are  bewildered  by  all  these  fractions  and  are 
obhged  to  call  in  a  minor  agent  of  the  seigneur  to  collect 
the  rents  for  them  ;  they  always  pay  more  than  they 
ought,  they  complain  and  tear  one  another  to  pieces."  ' 

The  comees  or  labour-rents  tended,  as  we  have  seen,  to 
disappear,  but  It  would  be  quite  incorrect  to  suppose 
that  they  were  a  rarity  in  1789  ;  they  still  survived  in 
many  parts  of  France,  though  much  reduced  in  severity. 
In  Auvergne,  for  example,  a  stronghold  of  feudalism, 
they  were  hmited  to  twelve  days  of  labour  during  the 
year,  and  this  seems  to  have  been  a  fairly  general  rule.^ 
It  is.  true  that  we  hear  of  complaints  in  Champagne  and 
Artois  of  peasants  being  obliged  to  work  with  ploughs 
and  draught-beasts  for  three,  and  even  five  days  a  week 
on  their  lord's  land  ;  but  it  would  seem  that  such  servitudes 
were  exceptional  and  confined  to  special  periods  of  the 
year,  such  as  the  ploughing  and  harvest  seasons.*  A 
case  pf6bal)ly  rhore  f^^ical  is  that  mentioned  by  Cardi- 
nal Mathieu  in  his  study  of  pre-revolutionary  Lorraine. 
The  inhabitants  of  Tantonville,  Quevilloncourt,  and 
Omelmont  were  obhged  to  perform  the  following  corvees 
during  the  year.  They  had  to  devote  three  days  to 
ploughing,  one  to  hay-making,  another  to  carting  the  hay, 
and  two  more  to  reaping  and  carrj'ing  the  oats.  In 
addition,  they  had  to  transport  two  cartloads  of  wood 

*  S6e,  Classes  rurales.  p.  91.  *  S6e  and  L^sort,  vol.  ii.  p.  330. 

•  Mfege,  p.  94.  *  Kovalewsky,  vol.  i.  p.  262. 


16    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

from  the  forest  to  the  chateau.  The  labourers  owed 
fifteen  days'  work  at  different  seasons.^  There  was  a 
vast  difference  between  such  conditions  and  those  which 
had  existed  in  the  Middle  Ages,  or  those  which  still 
obtained  on  the  great  estates  of  East  Prussia,  where  the 
peasants  laboured  for  six  days  in  the  week  on  their  lords' 
land  and  tilled  their  own  wretched  fields  by  moonlight. ^ 
Nevertheless,  they  were  burdensome  enough,  as  can  be 
seen  from  the  contemporary  complaints  on  the  subject. 
The  seigneurs,  say  the  inhabitants  of  Ormay  (Berry), 
"  by  multiplied  corvees  get  their  crops  reaped  and  carried 
whilst  their  vassals  run  the  risk  of  losing  their  own  "  ; 
they  "  compel  poor  labourers  to  work  for  nothing  at  the 
time  when  day-wages  are  highest  ;  force  those  who  have 
carts  to  carry  quantities  of  timber ;  compel  people  to 
beat  the  walnut-trees  and  to  crack  and  sift  the  nuts  all 
the  winter  ;  to  pick  their  grapes  ...  in  a  word,  do 
everything  that  thej^  need."  ^  The  peasants  of  La 
Beshere  complain  that  they  are  compelled  to  cart  the 
materials  for  the  construction  and  repair  of  the  seigneur's 
house,  farm  and  mill,  and  to  carry  his  hay.^  Sometimes 
lords  of  manors  endeavoured  to  exact  the  performance 
of  forced  labour  on  Sundays,  a  proceeding  which  shocked 
the  religious  sentiments  of  the  people.  "  A  seigneur  in 
the  neghbourhood  of  Tinteniac,"  says  the  cahier  of  that 
parish,  "  wished,  a  short  time  ago,  to  compel  his  vassals 
to  turn  hay  on  a  Sunday  ;  one  of  them  replied  that  he 
wanted  to  go  to  Mass,  when  the  seigneur  flew  into  a  rage, 
covered  him  with  blows,  knocked  him  down  and  struck 
out  his  eye."  ^ 

The  corvees  were  not  confined  to  manual  labour,^;for  the 
duty  of  collecting  the  dues  frnm  the  ppasanft;  of  aJorrl- 

1  Mathieu,  p.  316. 

2  Cavaignac  (G.),  La  Formation  de  la  Prusse  contemporaine,  vol.   i. 

P-  77- 

»  Gandilhon,  p.  277.  *  Bndrey,  vol.  i.  p.  158. 

*  See  and  Lesort,  vol.  iii.  p.  187. 


FEUDALISM  IN  1789  17 

ship.  knov\'n  as  the  devoir  de  sergeniise.  may  fairly  he. 
included  under  this  head.     The  unfortunate  inhabitant 
(who  very  probably  could  neither  read  nor  write)  charged 
with  this  irksome  task  was  responsible  for  rorrert  and 
punctual    payment,    with    consequences    that    are    well 
described  in  a  contemporary  document.     "  Proprietors 
who  liye  a  long  way  off,  or  are  sick,  and  those  who  cannot 
read  or  write,  are  obhged  to  find  a  substitute  ;  for  that 
they  must  pay  a  hundred,  a  thousand  times  as  much  as 
the  rent  they  owe.  ...     In  general,  it  may  be  said  that 
the  business  of  a  collector  is  a  rascal's  trade.     The  dues 
are,  for  the  most  part,  calculated  in  com  ;   they  are  not, 
however,  actually  paid  in  produce  but  by  their  equivalent 
in  money,  according  to  a  necessarily  variable  tariff.     The 
same  proprietor  often  owes  corn  of  several  kinds  and  in 
different    quantities.      The    calculation    always   bristles 
with  fractions,  and  when  the  peasant  cannot  read,  write, 
or  calculate  (which  is  almost  universally  the  case  in  the 
country  districts),  the  collector  takes  what  he  pleases, 
gives  quittance  as  he  pleases,  or  most  often  gives  none 
at  all.      Happy  the  peasant  who  is  not  made  to  pay 
several  times  in  the  same  year  !  "  ^     That  frauds  of  this 
kind  were  really  practised  appears  from  a  number  of  indi- 
vidual petitions  attached  to  the  cahier  of  Saint  Peran  ; 
inhabitant  after  inhabitant  complains  that  he  or  she  has 
paid  certain  charges  and  has  received  receipts  for  much 
less    than   the   amount    actually   paid.      Thus    Laurent 
Bigar^,  of  Garel,  complains  of  having  paid  the  sum  of  226 
livres,  12  sols,  and  has  been  given  a  receipt  for   only 
188  livres  ;   Jan  Bigare  and  his  sister  Marie  have  paid 
certain  sums  and  received  quittances  for  them,  but  now  a 
further  demand  for  money  has  been  made.     Moreover, 
because  they  could  not  produce  a  title  in  due  form  a  piece 
of  land  which  they  have  enjoyed  time  out  of  mind  and 
paid  rent  for,  has  been  taken  away.    Magdeleine  Guiomard 
has  paid  35  livres,  12  sols,  and  has  only  been  credited  with. 

*  Sagnac  and  Caron,  pp.  398-9. 
2 


18    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

15  livres,  12  sols,  and  so  on  through  the  whole  pitiful 
catalogue.  Nearly  half  the  complainants  were  unable 
to  sign  their  petitions.^  It  should  be  added  here  that 
abundant  evidence  exists  to  show  that  the  custom  of 
paying  rents  in  produce  gave  plentiful  sco^e  foFTraud 
^iid^^peciSTafimr'oii  the^  p  of  the  '  seigneurs' or  their 
agents.  A  favourite  device  was  to  pass  all  the  grain 
paid  in  through  special  sieves  and  reject  any  that  was 
not  of  superfine  quality.  A  still  commoner  practice  was 
the  use  of  fraudulent  or  worn-out  measures,  which  were 
larger  than  the  regulation  pattern  ;  the  absolute  anarchy 
in  regard  to  weights  and  measures  under  the  old  regime 
made  this  species  of  deceit  particularly  easy.  Thus  the 
peasants  of  Saint-Nicholas-de-Peudry,  in  Angoumois, 
complain  that  the  farmers  of  the  feudal  rents  use  a  bushel 
measure  which  is  "  very  old  and  worn,  with  a  great  deal 
of  rotten  wood  at  the  bottom  "  ;  they  calculate  that  its 
use  increases  their  payments  by  a  sixteenth. ^  The 
seigneur  of  Marthon,  in  the  same  region,  was  found  by 
the  municipality  in  1790  to  be  using  measures  "  con- 
siderably larger  than  they  ought  to  be,"  and  the  docu- 
ment which  tells  us  this  says  also  that  at  tha,t  moment 
no  less  than  eighty  parishes  in  the  province  were  at  law 
with  their  lords  over  similar  malpractices.  The  peasants 
of  Limousis,  near  Carcassonne,  declared  in  the  same  year 
that  they  had  always  paid  their  dues  according  to  a  local 
measure,  but  that  their  seigneur,  who  had  only  acquired 
the  manor  in  1774,  insisted  on  using  the  measure  of 
Carcassonne,  which  was  larger  by  a  quarter.^ 

The  charges  and  services  we  have  discussed  hitherto 
were  regular  in  their  incidence  ;  those  of  another  class 
which  must  now  be  described  were  levied  at  irregular 
intervals  and  were  known,  in  consequence,  as  "^^ual  " 
diips,     They  were  direct  survivals  from  the  epoch  when 

1  S6e  and  L6sort,  vol.  iii.  p.  433  et  seq. 

•  Boissonade,  p.  281. 

•  Sagnac  and  Caron,  pp.  201  and  408. 


FEUDALISM  IN  1789  19 

the  workers  on  the  soil  were  the  lord's  "  men,"  and  held 
their  land  only  at  his  will  and  pleasure.  Let  us  con- 
sider  these  in  the  order  in  which  they  affected  the  average 
peasant  during  his  lifetime. 

The  peasant's  first  duty  on  entering  into  possession 
QJ  his  holding,  whether  by  purchase  or  inheritance,  was 
to  render  an  aveu  to  his  feudal  superior,  that  is.  to  make 
a  formal  act  of  acknowledgment  that  he  owed  payment 
'.of  the  dues  and  services  with  which  the  land  was  charged.^ 
Tjiis   acknowledgment   had  to   contain    a    precise    and 
detailed  statement  as  to  the  holding  itself  ;   an  exact  list 
of  all  the  servitudes  that  weighed  upon  it,  and  an  ex- 
hibition of  the  titles  by  which  the  new  owner  had  acquired 
it.     It  was  of  the  first  importance  that  the  statement 
should  be  correct  in  every  particular,  for  if  within  thirty 
years  of  the  entry  into  possession  an  error  were  discovered, 
the  aveu  was  useless  and  had  to  be  redrawn.     As  the 
drawing  up  of  this  recognition  was  a  costly  business. — 
M.  Dupont  quotes  a  case  where  it  amounted  to  220  livres, 
and  the  cahier  of  Saint-Peran  mentions  one  where  the  cost 
was  226  livres,  12  sols,^ — it  was  a  serious  matter  for  the 
peasant  if  his  statement  were  thus  made  of  no  effect. 
Yet  such  was  the  comphcated  character  of  tenures  and 
of  dues  that  this  frequently  happened,  and  M.  See  men- 
tions an  instance  where  the  same  man  suffered  twice  in 
this  way.     He  rendered  his  aveu  in   1767  ;    ten  years 
later  it  had  to  be  "  reformed  "  for  the  first  time,  and  for 
the  second  in  1778.^     A  fresh  aveu  had  to  be  made  when- 
ever an  additional  parcel  of  land  was  acquired  ;    "  men 
have  been  known  to  render  aveu  nine  times  in  succession 
for  small  acquisitions  of  land,"  says  the  cahier  of  Iss6  ; 
"  there  is  a  man  in  this  parish  who  has  rendered  aveu 
five  times  in  less  than  twenty-two  years,"  says  that  of 

»  "One  of  the  vassal's  first  duties  is  that  of  recognising  his  lord." 
Boutaric.  Traiti  des  droits  seigneuriaux.  1758,  p.  3. 

*  Dupont,  p.  66  note  ;   S6e  and  Lfcsort,  vol.  iii.  p.  433. 

•  S6e,  Classts  ruraUs.  p.  80. 


20    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

Ruffigne.^  It  is  not  surprising,  therefore,  to  read  that 
"  the  poor  vassals  tremble  at  the  very  name  of  aveux  ; 
they  are  chains  of  feudal  despotism  which,  so  long  as  they 
are  not  broken,  will  hold  the  inhabitants  of  the  country 
in  a  servitude  both  degrading  and  injurious  to  human- 
ity." 2  Side  by  side  with  this  Breton  complaint  we 
may  put  one  from  Languedoc,  which  tells  a  similar  story. 
"  The  seigneur  or  his  agents  ruin  the  poor  inhabitants  of 
this  community  by  continual  vexations,  and  the  multi- 
plication of  the  recognitions  which  the  said  seigneur 
exacts  from  his  poor  vassals.  ...  He  has  divided  his 
manor  into  two,  and  wishes  to  force  them  to  recognise 
two  seigneurs,  thus  ruining  them  by  unjust  charges."  ^ 

At  intervals  of  twenty  or  thirty  years  the  lords  usually 
undertook  a  general  revision  of  their  manor-rolls  or 
terriers,  which  necessitated  a  fresh  declaration  from  every 
inhabitant.  These  revisions — made,  it  is  to  be  observed, 
at  the  cost  of  the  peasants,  not  of  the  lords — gave  rise 
to  endless  opportunities  for  fraud  and  extortion.  They 
^^^IJJ-gUf'-^^y  undertaken  by  (;:oni,mi<^saire'^  ^  terrier,  men 
who_made  a  profession  of  such^  as.  their  pay- 

men^was  often  increased  in  prpporlion^_tcL_Lii£_amount 
they  could  add  to  the  rent-rolL_they  had  every  motive 
for  swelling  the  revenues  unjustly.  Sometimes  these 
posts  were  sold  to  the  highest  bidder,  who,  of  course, 
hastened  to  recoup  his  expenditure  at  the  cost  of  the 
vassals."*  Several  contemporary  documents  show  how 
this  was  effected.  "  When  the  owner  of  a  fief  added 
another  to  it,  the  more  onerous  manor-roll  became  the 
general  law  ;  if  there  were  a  renovation,  the  old  rights 
were  extended  and  new  ones  created.  The  vassal  ren- 
dered an  acknowledgment  bhndly  ;  if  he  resisted,  he 
was  ruined  and  could  obtain  no  justice.  ...  A  commis- 
saire  d  terrier  was  not  content  unless  in  the  general  recog- 

1  See,  Classes  rurales,  p.  i88  ;   S6e  and  L6sort,  vol.  ii.  p.  384. 

'  Cahier  of  Villepot,  in  Dupont,  p.  65. 

»  Bligny-Bondurand,  vol.  i.  p.  384.  *  Vernier,  vol.  i.  p.  508. 


FEUDALISM  IN  1789  21 

nition  of  rights  he  contrived  to  include  all  those  of  which 
a  feudal  dictionary  could  furnish  him  the  names."  ^ 
"  A  seigneur  has  recourse  to  a  feudal  lawyer  in  order  to 
seize  or  bring  under  his  control  lands  possessed  in  franc- 
alleu.^  This  lawyer  .  .  .  never  fails  to  lend  himself 
to  the  lord's  ambition.  He  draws  up  a  form  of  recogni- 
tion, seconded  by  the  seigneur's  notary,  which  appears 
to  be  accepted  by  a  few  proprietors  who  cannot  write. 
None  of  the  parties  being  present  at  the  act,  .  .  . 
agriers,  rents,  and  other  seigneurial  dues  which  may  be 
convenient  to  the  lord  are  included  in  it  at  discretion 
and  according  to  the  quality  of  the  land."  ^  In  a  petition 
of  the  parish  of  Champigny  we  read  :  "  During  a  century, 
the  manor-roll  of  the  domain  and  lordship  of  Champign}', 
several  times  renewed,  has  subjected  the  inhabitants  to 
the  most  shameful,  humihating,  and  arbitrary  charges 
and  corvees,  and  it  seems  that  each  seigneur  has  improved 
upon  the  cruelty  of  his  predecessor."  ■*  Every  separate 
article  on  the  roll  had  to  be  paid  for,  so  that  it  was  a 
common  practice  when  a  number  of  persons  were  collec- 
tively charged  with  a  due  to  make  separate  entries  for 
each  of  them,  thus  increasing  the  fees  of  the  scribe  and 
the  expenses  of  his  victims.*  These  were  bound  to  be 
heavy  enough,  in  any  case,  for  in  many  parts  of  the 
country  the  peasants'  holdings  were  made  up  of  a  number 
of  scattered  strips  or  parcels,  each  of  which  required 
separate  mention  and  separate  payment.  A  cahier  of 
the  Pas-de-Calais  says,  for  instance,  that  "  almost  all 
the  parcels  of  a  farm  are  divided,  scattered,  and  far 
removed  from  one  another  ;  often  they  are  found  at  a 
quarter  of  a  league  or  more  from  the  centre  of  habita- 
tion." •  From  an  official  document  of  1792,  we  learn 
that    in    Burgundy  a    typical    peasant    holding    of    30 

*  Sagnac  and  Caron,  p.  271. 

*  See  below,  p.  56.  for  an  explanation  of  this  term. 

»  Quoted  by  Kar6iew,  p.  98  note.  *IbiJ.  p.  99. 

*  M^ge,  p.  78.  •  Loriquet,  vol.  11.  p.  204. 


22    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

arpents  would  be  made  up  of  anything  between  two  and 
three  hundred  separate  parcels,  all  divided  by  other 
properties. 1  M,  Aulard  mentions  a  village  in  Champagne 
where,  owing  to  this  cause,  the  holder  of  50  arpents  of 
land  was  obliged  to  pay  200  livres  for  his  share  of  the 
renovation  of  the  manor-roll. ^  The  cahier  of  Paimpont 
declares  that  such  a  renovation,  which  only  increased 
the  lord's  rents  by  100  livres,  cost  the  vassals  at  least 
7000,  and  reduced  several  of  them  to  beggary  ;  ^  one  of 
the  cahiers  of  the  region  of  Auxerre  calculates  that,  since 
1786,  the  renewal  of  the  terriers  had  cost  more  than  six 
times  the  total  sum  of  the  tallage  paid  to  the  royal 
revenue.*  That  extortion  on  this  scale  should  have 
given  rise  to  endless  legal  disputes  is  not  surprising  ;  the 
renovation  which  took  place  in  the  manor  of  Pierre- 
Buffiere  in  1783  involved  the  Marquise  de  Mirabeau  in 
no  less  than  sixty."^ 

We  have  spoken  above  of  ]^urchases  of  land  made  by 
the  peasants.  Such  purchases  gave  occasion  for  the 
levying  of  a  fresh  charge,  that  of  lods  et  venies,  a  feudal 
right  universal  in  France  bpfore  the  IRevohition.  It 
consisted  of  the  payment  to  the  lord  of  a  proportion  of 
the  purchase  price,  a  proportion  which  varied  greatly 
in  different  districts.  In  Normandy,  it  was  only  a  thir- 
teenth, in  Brittany  an  eighth,  but  it  rose  in  parts  of 
Lorraine  and  Auvergne  to  a  third  or  even  a  half.^  Local 
customs  also  varied  as  to  vyho  actually  paid  the  charge  ; 
in  some  districts  it  was  the  vendor,  in  others  the^purchaser. 
in  others  again  it  was  shared  between  them.  The  in- 
jurious effect  of  this  right  on  the  market  in  land,  by 
artificially  increasing  prices,  is  obvious,  and  when  it  was 
extended,  as  was  sometimes  the  case,  to  exchanges,  it 
was  directly  detrimental  to  agricultural  progress.     Where, 

^  Bourgin,  p.  6i.  *  Aulard,  p.  33. 

»  See,  Classes  rurales,  p.  188.  *  Kovalewsky,  vol.  i.  p.  266. 

*  Ibid.  vol.  i.  p.  279. 

•  M^ge,  p.  114  ;  Sagnac  and  Caron,  p.  64. 


FEUDALISM  IN  1789  23 

as  in  Brittany  and  the  areas  mentioned  above,  the  hold- 
ings were  usually  made  up  of  many  scattered  strips,  the 
levying  of  the  dues  on  exchanges  prevented  the  desirable 
consohdation  of  holdings.  "  The  inhabitants  complain," 
says  the  cahier  of  Erbray,  "  of  being  obhged  to  pay  the 
lods  et  ventes  on  the  exchanges  that  they  make  between 
themselves  to  amehorate  the  holdings  by  consolidation, 
and  they  demand  that  these  dues  be  suppressed."  ^ 

M.  Kovalewsky  has  urged  that  this  right,  though  very 
vexatious  to  the  peasants,  brought  little  profit  to  the 
lords  ;  but  if  we  may  generalise  from  the  facts  concerning 
Brittany  this  view  is  quite  untenable.  The  "  Book  of 
receipts  from  lods  et  ventes  concerning  the  lands  of  Saint- 
Brice,  Saint-Etienne,  Sens,  Parigne,  Le  Soher,  La  Fon- 
taine," quoted  by  M.  See,  shows  a  total  income  from 
this  source,  from  1764  to  1771,  of  nearly  20,000  livres. 
The  average  annual  return  in  the  lordship  of  Fouesnel 
between  1776  and  1784  was  over  iioo  livres,  while  in  a 
third  manor  the  total  sum  received  fromx  1776  to  1788 
was  a  little  more  than  16,000  livres^ 

But  the  claims  of  the  lord  in  the  matter  of  sales  and 
purchases  did  not  always  end  there.  Another  widely 
spread  right  was  that  of  retrait  or  i)relatio7t,  by  which  he 
could  refuse  to  acknowledge  the  sale  and  himself  enter 
into  possession  of  the  land.  In  Auvergne  he  could,  by 
a  refinement  on  this  custom,  enforce  a  fjesh  sale  to  a 
higher  bidder,  and  claim  the  difference  between  the  two 
prices.  Frequently  this  right  of  retrait  was  used  to 
exact  a  payment  supplementary  to  the  lods  et  ventes,  and 
as  it  could  be  enforced  at  any  time  during  thirty  years 
after  the  sale,  it  necessarily  produced  grave  uncertainty 
and  insecurity  in  possession.  Tt  was  a  weapon  which  the 
seigneurs  or  their  agents  could  always  brandish  over 
the  heads  of  recalcitrant  peasants  ;  as  the  cahier  of  Castil- 
lon  says,  it  served  them  "  as  a  pretext  to  wage  a  war  of 

^  She  and  L^sort,  vol.  ii.  p.  350. 

•  Kovalewsky,  vol.  i.  p.  252.     S6e,  Classes  rurales,  pp.  114-5- 


24    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

brigandage  against  their  vassals."  "  The  seigneurs," 
says  the  community  of  Birac  (Lot-et-Garonne),  "  abuse 
[the  right  of  prelation]  in  a  manner  as  odious  as  it  is  un- 
just ;  it  has  happened  in  this  parish  within  our  recollec- 
tion that  certain  persons,  who  had  acquired  lands  and 
enjoyed  them  for  more  than  twenty  years,  have  been 
deprived  of  them  by  means  of  this  right."  The  cahier  of 
Ansouis  points  out  another  abuse.  "  If  he  [the  peasant] 
has  not  taken  the  precaution  to  obtain  a  receipt  for  the 
lods  et  ventes  from  the  seigneur  himself  (that  of  his  agent 
being  only  valid  as  an  acknowledgment  of  the  actual 
sum),  he  may  find  himself  despoiled  of  his  land  at  the 
end  of  ten  or  twelve  years  because  the  lord  wishes  to 
retake  it  for  himself  or  a  third  party."  ^ 

Land  changed  hands  by  reason  of  inheritance  as  wel  1 
as  sale  and  exchange  :  the  fief  itself  passed  into  fresh 
^ownership  on  occasion.  These  mutations  of  property 
gave  rise  to  other  species  of  dues,  known  as  rachat,  acapie, 
marciase,  quint,  and  requint,  according  to  locality.  They 
amounted,  as  g.  rule,  to  one  year's  revenue  from  the 
hglding  (though  a  cahier  of  Quercy  speaks  of  the  acapte 
as  fixed  at  double  the  annual  rent-charge) ,' and  M. 
Se^  is  of  opinion  that  in  Brittany  the  rachats  were  more 
profitable  even  than  the  lods  and  ventes.  In  the  one  case 
for  which  he  provides  figures,  the  receipts  from  the  latter 
between  1776  and  1788  were  rather  more  than  16,000 
livres,  and  from  the  former  36,500. ^ 

In  addition  to  these  widely-spread  and  highly-profit- 
able rights,  other  casual .  dues  had  survived  from  the 
Middle  Ages  which,  though  no_  longer  of  great  import- 
ance in  1789,  are  still  worthy  of  mention.  Thus,  it  is 
interesting  to  note  that  in  German  Lorraine  there 
survived  a  custom,  corresponding  to  the  old  English 
heriot.   which   authorised   the   seigneur    to    appropriate 

^  M^ge,  pp.  73-4  ;    Marion,  Bordeaux  ;    Sagnac  and   Caron,  p.  98  ; 
Kar6iew,  p.  47. 

*Mdge,  p.  I20  ;  Fourastie,  p.  89;  See,  Classes  rurales,  pp.  110-5. 


FEUDALISM  IN  1789  25 

the  second-best  chattel  of  a  deceased  vassal.  Even 
more  curious  is  it  to  find  the  old  feudal  reliefs  still 
in  existence  at  the  eve  of  the  Revolution.  These  had 
been  levied  in  mediaeval  times  when  tlu  lord  went  on 
crusade,  when  he  was  a  prisoner  and  needed  ransom, 
when  he  or  his  eldest  son  was  made  a  knight,  and jvvhen 
his  eldest  daughter  married.  The  cahier  of  Touzac  in 
Quercy  alleges  that  these  rights  were  still  in  force  there 
in  1789,  as  does  that  of  Pleumeleuc  in  Brittany,  and  in 
two  other  provinces  at  least  there  is  evidence  of  survival. 
M.  Mege  cites  two  instances  of  the  last  named  case  of 
rehef  arising  in  Auvergne  in  1763  and  1777.  At  Arc-sur 
Tille  (Cote-d'Or)  in  1784,  M.  de  Saulx  Tavannes  was 
made  a  knight  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  immediately 
claimed  a  rehef  from  his  vassals  on  the  strength  of  this 
decoration.  They  were  unchivalrous  enough  to  refuse 
and  took  the  matter  to  law,  but  the  Parhament  decided 
in  his  favour  and  they  were  ultimately  obhged  to  pay  !  ^ 
But  exactions  such  as  these  were,  after  all,  no  more 
than  the  rehcs  of  a  vanished  age,  vexatious  anachronisms 
which  affected  a  comparatively  small  number  of  people. 
^-^  The  rights  included  in  our  third  category,  that  is,  the 
XWfeudal  monopolies,  were  of  a  very  different  character. 
It  is  safe  to  affirm  that  nothing,  save  the  royal  taxes, 
excited  more  discontent  among  the  rural  populaflon  in 
1789.  These  monopolies  may  be  divided  into  three 
classes,  the  first  and  most  important  of  which  included 
the  so-called  hanalites. 

From  very  early  times  the  lords  of  manors  had 
enjoyed  a  monopoly  of  certain  indispensable  economic 
instruments  :  the  mill,  the  bakehouse,  the  presses  for 
wine  and  oil,  and  the  people  on  their  domains  had  been 
compelled  to  use  these  and  no  others.  Such  monopolies 
still  existed  all  over  France  at  the  beginning  of  the  revolu- 
tionary era,  and  were  enforced  with  every  circumstance 

1  Mathieu,  p.  319  ;  Fourasti6,  p.  314  ;  S6e  and  L6sort.  vol.  iii.  p.  343  ; 
Gamier  (Noel),  Arc-svr-Tille,  1 789-1802,  pp.  13-4. 


26    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

of  harshness  and  chicanery.  It  had  become  excejptional 
for  the  seigneurs  themselves  to  manage  the  mills  and 
ovens  ;  they  were  -usually  farmed  out  to  the  highest 
bidder,  vv^o  was  cjten^  not  very  scrupulous  as  to  the 
means  by  which  he  extracted  his  personal  profit  from 
his  compulsory  customers.  The  bad  reputation  of  the 
miller  was  universal  in  the  Middle  Ages,  and  his  dishonesty 
and  craft  were  as  proverbial  in  France  at  the  end  of  the 
eighteenth  century  as  they  were  in  Chaucer's  England. 
He  was  -allowed  to  claim  a  certain  portion  (usually  one- 
sixteenth)  of  the  corn  ground  as  his  payment,  but  he  was 
seldom  contented  with  lawful  gains.  "  The  monopoly 
of  mills  and  bakehouses  is  a  ruinous  slavery,"  exclaim 
the  inhabitants  of  Sainte-Solange  ;  "the  monopoly  of 
mills,"  say  those  of  Villeneuve  I'Archeveque,  "is  a 
frightful  relic  of  feudal  barbarism,  by  means  of  which, 
and  in  the  absence  of  competition,  the  proprietors  or  their 
tenants  can  rob  with  impunity  those  who  are  subject 
to  them."  "  Their  [the  seigneurs']  cupidity,"  says  the 
very  radical  cahier  of  Saint-Maugan,  "  has  invented  the 
secret  of  farming  out  their  mills  at  double  their  value 
to  worthless  men,  who  take  from  the  unhappy '  vassals 
a  fourth  instead  of  a  sixteenth  "  of  their  corn  ;  "  fraud  is 
clandestine  and  difficult  to  prove,"  and  even  if  the  vassal 
succeeded  in  winning  a  suit  against  the  miller,  "  it  would 
only  result  in  further  loss,  the  millers  being,  for  the  most 
part,  without  property  on  which  an  execution  can  be 
levied,  and  as  no  larceny  of  theirs  dispenses  the  vassal 
from  delivering  his  substance  to  their  rapacity,  he  is 
exposed  to  be  robbed  the  more  when  he  complains " 
{Cahier  of  Saint-Lormel).^ 

Apart  from  these  exactions,  the  peasants  were  often 
compelled  to  carry  their  grain  for  long  distances_to_inr 
conveniently  situated  rnills.  Those  of  Echemines,  for 
instance,   complain  that  they  are  bound  "  to  use  a  mill 

'  Gandilhon,  p.  466;  Por6e,  p.  513;  S6e  and  L6sort,  vol.  iii.  pp. 
400  and  671, 


FEUDALISM  IN  1789  27 

which  is  in  the  middle  of  a  marsh  two  and  a  half  leagues 
from  our  parish."  The  lords^  frequently  evaded  their 
responsibilities,  and,  while  they  asserted  their  rights, 
failedJiD-pnQvide  proper  accommodation.  Though  the 
number  of  vines  had  almost  doubled  in  Lorraine  in  the 
thirty  years  before  1788,  the  number  of  winepresses 
had  remained  stationary,  and  there  were  not  half  as 
many  as  were  needed.  The  inhabitants  of  the  com- 
munity of  Broves  each  paid  a  due  of  four  baskets  of  com 
for  permission  to  light  fires  in  their  houses  although  no 
seigneurial  oven  or  bakehouse  existed  in  the  village. 
There  was  no  mill  at  Le  Mole  ;  nevertheless,  the  lord 
collected  a  tax  called  florinage,  paid  by  the  inhabitants 
to  be  free  from  the  monopoly  of  a  mill  which  did  not  exist ! 
At  Sainte-Maxime  the  people  had  constructed  ovens  of 
their  own,  and  paid  dues  to  the  Abbey  of  Thorouet  for 
the  right  to  use  them.  Nevertheless,  the  monks  levied 
a  second  due  every  year,  which  was  intended  to  replace 
the  revenue  they  should  have  derived  from  their  monopoly. 
The  unfortunate  consumers  thus  paid  twice  for  the  same 
object.  There  was  neither  mill  nor  oven  at  Cabrieres 
d'Aigues,  but  the  lord  still  demanded  a  twelfth  of  the 
peasant's  flour  and  one  loaf  in  every  forty.  In  order  to 
enforce  his  monopoly  he  compelled  the  people  to  carry 
their  pioduce  to  another  village  at  a  league's  distance, 
where  he  did  possess  both  mill  and  bakehouse.  Finally, 
it  must  be  said  that  the  monopohes  were  maintained 
with  odious  harshness  and  disregard  for  human  rights. 
"  Let  posterity  ignore  if  it  can,"  says  the  Third  Estate  of 
Rennes  in  its  cahier,  "  that  in  recent  times  Breton  feudal 
tyranny,  armed  with  judicial  powers,  has  not  blushed  to 
break  hand-mills,  and  to  sell  annually  to  unhappy  wretches 
the  right  of  grinding  a  measure  of  barley  between  two 
stones."  The  frequent  complaints  as  to  the  prohibition 
of  the  use  of  hand-mills  in  the  Breton  parish  cahiers 
prove  that  this  outburst  was  justified.  "  We  complain," 
says  that  of  Cuguen,  "  of  the  frauds  and  pilferings  of  the 


28    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

millers,  who,  not  content  with  grinding  our  com  badly, 
levy  twice,  three  times,  or  four  times  the  charge  accorded 
them  by  the  customary  law  ;  who  even,  though  their 
mills  are  not  in  a  condition  to  grind  our  black  com, 
demand  20,  30,  sometimes  40  sols  and  even  more,  from 
each  consumer,  for  the  liberty  of  grinding  their  black 
corn  in  hand-mills."  ^ 

These  monopolies  w^re  a j)rofitable  itemjn  the  feudal 
budgets.  From  his  two  mills  in  the  parish  of  Brienon- 
siir-Arman9on,  the  Archbishop  of  Sens  derived  a  revenue 
of  2808  livres  ;  his  ovens  and  presses  brought  in  950 
more.  M.  See  shows  that  the  value  of  the  mills  rose 
steadily  throughout  the  eighteenth  century,  particularly 
in  the  latter  half.  Between  1694  and  1730  the  revenue 
from  the  mills  at  Glanettes  and  Hautbois  rose  from  330  to 
550  livres  ;  the  mill  at  Faucherais  was  farmed  out  for 
500  livres  in  17 16,  by  1745  the  annual  rent  had  risen  to 
660.  That  at  Haye-Dix  brought  100  livres  in  1771  and 
350  in  1787,  and  the  yearly  revenue  from  that  at  Pont- 
Dauphin  rose  from  450  to  800  livres  between  177 1  and 
1783.=^ 

Ajiother  clasj  pi  monopolies  very  ^injurious  ^  to  the 
peasants  was  the  exclusive  possession  by  their  superiors 
of  hunting  and  fishing  rights,  and  of  the  right  to  keep 
pigeon-hQi;^§g§,  The  cultivators  were  forbidden  to  kill 
the  game  which  ravaged  their  crops,  and  had  no  effective 
protection  against  the  hunts  and  the  swarms  of  pigeons 
which  aescenHeir  on  the  newly-sown  fields.  The  chief, 
perhapa  the  only  pleasure  of  the  noblesse  de  campagne 
_was_tlie^chase,  and  they  did  not  hesitate  to  terrorise  the 
people  in  order  to  secure  its  unrestricted  enjoyment.  The 
royal  ordinances  which  forbade  hunting  in  the  cultivated 
fields  and  vineyards  were  universally  ignored,  and  the 
privilege  of  sport  was  sometimes  made  the  excuse  for 

^  Poree,  p.  269  ;  Mathieu,  p.  306  ;  Mireur,  pp.  78,  319,  415  ;   Koval- 
ewsky,  vol.  i.  p.  228  ;  Giffard,  p.  273  ;  S6e  and  Ldsort,  vol.  ii.  p.  623. 
'  Poree,  p.  120;  See,  Classes  rurales,  pp.  135-6. 


FEUDALISM  IN  1789  29 

compelling  the  peasants  to  act  as  beaters,  and  even  for 
raising  a  tax  from  them  for  the  upkeep  of  packs  of  hunting 
dogs  !  SoHcitude  for  the  game  often  led  to  grave  restric- 
tions upon  the  peasant's  hberty  of  action.  In  many 
places  he  was  forbidden  to  weed  his  fields  or  mow  his  hay 
at  certain  seasons  lest  he  should  disturb  the  partridges 
or  destro}'  their  eggs.  "  The  peasant  cannot  clear  his 
field  of  weeds  or  mow  his  meadows  before  the  24th  June, 
even  though  his  hay  is  perishing,  and  all  on  account  of 
the  partridge  eggs,"  says  one  cahier  ;  "  will  it  be  believed 
that  we  often  lose  a  portion  of  our  hay  so  as  not  to  disturb 
the  partridges,  which  are  reared  for  our  ruin  ?  "  exclaims 
another.  Another  result  of  this  monopoly  was  that  the 
lords  strove  by  every  means  to  disarm  the  people,  thus 
leaving  them  without  defence  against  thieves  or  wild 
beasts.  That  these  last  were  sometimes  a  real  danger 
will  be  apparent  when  it  is  remembered  that  in  May  1785 
no  less  than  forty-two  wolves  were  killed  in  the  neighbour- 
hood of  Quimperle.  A  royal  decree  of  the  same  year 
permitted  the  offering  of  rewards  for  the  destruction  of 
these  animals,  which,  it  would  seem,  especially  infested 
the  Cevennes.  The  inhabitants  of  Quebriac  complained 
in  1789  that  the  servants  of  their  seigneur  had  carried  off 
their  firearms  while  they  were  in  church  !  ^ 

The  pigeons  must  have  formed  an  important  item  in 
the  manorial  economy,  especially  in  the  case  of  the  poorer 
nobles.  The  cahier  of  Breuvery  notes  that  the  seigneurs 
carried  on  a  considerable  commerce  in  pigeons,  which 
wefe"^ugHt~up  by  traders  who  visited  the  district  every 
year.  It  is  certain  that  they  were  often  kept  in  enormous 
numbers  ;  M.  Gandilhon  mentions  a  proprietor  of  a  fief 
in  Berry  who  owned  a  colombier  which  accommodated 
more  than  two  thousand  birds.  To  add  to  the  exaspera- 
tion of  the  peasants,  wealthy  farmers  and  townsmen  who 
held  lands  in  the  manors  frequently  (and  illegally)"  took 

*  S6e,  Classes  rurales.  pp.  152-3;  Kar6iew,  p.  63;  Bligny-Bondu- 
rand,  vol.  ii.  p.  440  note;  S6e  and  L^sort,  vol.  iii.  p.  178. 


80    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

to  themselves  the  right  of  maintaining  pigeon-cotes,  so 
that  a  single  village  might  find  itself  the  victim  of  several 
of  these  pests.  The  cahier  of  Savigny,  for  example,  states 
that  in  that  parish  "  there  are  six  fiefs  which  each  have  a 
pigeon-house  and  that  of  the  seigneur  makes  the  seventh." 
The  inhabitants  estimated  that  the  hungry  birds  carried 
off  at  least  one-fifth  of  their  crops. ^ 

It  would  be  easy  to  fill  many  pages  with  extracts  from 
the  cahiers  dealing  with  these  two  grievances,  but  a  few 
examples  must  suffice.  "  Shall  we  always  see  our  sowings 
carried  off,  and  our  harvests  ravaged  by  the  pigeons 
whose  numbers  are  allowed  to  increase  to  infinity  ? 
Their  proprietor  knows  well  enough  how  to  pursue  without 
mercy  anyone  who  tries  to  drive  them  away  by  firing 
over  them,  but  does  he  ever  dream  of  repairing  the  serious 
damage  they  cause  ?  "  "A  cote  filled  with  pigeons  may 
bring  in  400  livres  to  its  owner  every  year.  .  .  .  From 
the  1st  June  till  the  month  of  September,  such  a  pigeon- 
house  damages  the  crops  of  the  cultivators  to  an  extent 
which  we  estimate  at  3000  livres."  "  If  a  peasant  has  the 
misfortune  to  kill  a  hare  that  eats  his  cabbages,  a  ruinous 
suit  is  brought  against  him,  but  he  has  no  right  to  com- 
plain when  a,  noble  .  .  .  hunts  in  his  corn  with  thirty 
dogs.  ...  A  noble,  for  a  word  said  by  a  peasant  to  a 
lackey  who  hunts  in  a  sown  field,  sends  or  goes  himself 
to  kill  the  peasant's  dog  at  his  door,  and  if  the  man 
complain  he  is  beaten  or  even  thrown  into  prison." 
"  That  an  honest  cultivator  should  be  attacked  and 
deprived  of  his  gun  without  payment ;  that  he  should 
incur  the  pain  and  shame  of  prison  for  daring  to  kill  a 
rabbit  01  a  pigeon,  when  he  ought  to  receive  compensation 
for  the  damage  he  has  suffered,  that  is  a  cruel  injustice  and 
a  murderous  tyranny.  We  complain  that  the  seigneurs, 
their  gamekeepers  and  their  servants,  hunt  with  dogs 
across  our  sown  fields,  destroy  our  fairest  hopes,  and 
threaten  to  fire  on  us  if  we  dare  to  protest."     "  The 

^  Laurent,  p.  100  ;  Gandilhon,  pp.  29  and  342. 


FEUDALISM  IN  1789  81 

seigneurs  and  others  who  have  hunting  rights  allow  a 
large  quantity  of  game  to  accumulate  in  their  forests, 
which  game  ravages  the  country  and  does  incalculable 
damage  when  the  corn  begins  to  ripen.  We  have  often 
counted  herds  of  twenty  and  thirty  stags  and  hinds 
walking  at  broad  daylight  in  the  middle  of  a  field  of  corn, 
choosing  the  best  ears.  If  we  estimate  the  annual 
damage  at  a  sixth  of  the  crops,  we  take  the  lowest  figure."  ^ 
In^  the  third  class  of  feudal  monopohes  must  be  in- 
cluded  those  rights  which  permitted  the  lords  of  fiefs  to 
levy  taxes  of  different  kinds  upon  trade  and^commerce . 
There  were,  in  the  first  jplace^  the  peaces  or  Jolls  imposed 
on  commodities  passing  along  roads  and  over  fords, 
ferries,  and  bridges.  Thus,  since  the  fifteenth  century, 
a  toll  on  goods  passing  to  the  town  of  Sens  over  or  under 
the  bridges  across  the  Yonne  had  been  levied  for  the 
profit  of  three  seigneurs.  Other  varieties  of  this  right 
.were  known  as  pontonna^e,  levied  at  bridges,  ana  _^/- 
verage,  a  charge  upon  each  head  of  cattle  passing  through 
the  lordship.  The  rights  known  as  hallage,  minage, 
bouleillage,  etalage,  mesurage,  were  taxes  on  commodities, 
cereals,  and  wine  sold  in  fairs  and  markets,  on  tjie_stalls 
from  which  they  were  sold,  and  on  the  weights  and 
measures  used  by  the  vendors.  A  brief  description  of 
the  feudal  rights  actually  enforced  at  Villeneuve- 
I'Archeveque  will  illustrate  this  category  of  seigneurial 
monopolies.  They  included  a  right  of  weights  and 
measuies  on  all  merchandise  sold  ;  a  right  of  minage  on 
all  com  sold  ;  a  right  of  rdclage  on  all  grain  and  peas 
exposed  for  sale  in  the  market  by  the  inhabitants  of  the 
town  and  suburb  ;  rights  of  etalage  charged  upon  all  the 
merchants,  whether  inhabitants  or  not,  doing  business  in 
the  town  ;  similar  rights  on  all  drapers,  weavers,  and 
butchers ;  and,  finally,  a  comprehensive  tax  on  all  mer- 
chandise of  whatever  kind  "  sold  in  Villeneuve  or  its 

*  Gandilhon,  p.  29  ;  Bloch,  vol.  i.  p.  712;  S6e  and  L6sort,  vol.  iii. 
p.  401,  and  vol.  ii.  p.  624  ;  Bridrey,  vol.  ii.  p.  304  ;  Etienne,  p.  146. 


32    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

suburbs."  This  feudal  control  qver^fairs^  and  jnarkets 
sometimes  led  to  strange  abuses.  Seigneurs  arrogated 
to  themselves  the  royal  right  of  creating  them  and  then 
compelled  their  vassals  to  deal  there.  Thus,  when  in 
1765  new  fairs  were  established  at  Grandchamps  and 
/  Malgolerian,  the  inhabitants  of  all  the  parishes  depending 
on  the  lordship  of  Largouet  were  ordered  to  take  there 
all  the  commodities  they  had  for  sale.^ 

The  injurious  effects  of  these  private  taxes  hardly  need 
to  be  pointed  out.  They  must  inevitable  have  increased 
prices,  diminished  demand,  and  thus  injured  both  pro- 
ducer and  consumer.  The  fact  that  in  some  parts  of  the 
country  ecclesiastics  and  nobles  were  exempt  from  them, 
only  made  them  appear  the  more  odious  to  the  peasants 
and  townspeople.  The  government  made  spasmodic 
efforts  to  control  or  abohsh  them,  but  these  attempts 
met  with  no  great  success.  Turgot,  as  part  of  his  cam- 
paign for  free  trade  in  corn,  procured  the  issue  of  an  edict 
calling  upon  all  seigneurs  who  claimed  these  rights  of  tax 
and  toll  to  produce  the  title-deeds  on  which  they  were 
based,  but  fell  from  power  before  this  reform  could  be 
carried  through.  His  failure  was  one  more  pro®f  of  the 
impossibiUty  of  serious  social  change  under  the  old 
regime. 

Closely  alHed  to  the  class  of  rights  just  described  were 
those  which  gave  the  seigneurs  a  privileged  position  in 
their  own  economic  deahngs.  Such  were  the  banvins  andi 
bans  de  vendanges.  which  secured  for  the  nobles  the  power 
to  sell  their  wine  before  their  va^<;ak.  The  period  fixed 
by  these  rights  seems  to  have  varied  a  good  deal ;  in 
Burgundy,  according  to  De  Tocqueville,  the  lord  had 
the  advantage  of  only  a  single  day,  but  elsewhere  of  a 
month  or  even  forty  days.^ 

Finally,  to  make  this  section  complete,  we  must  refer 

*  Por6e,  pp.  5  and  500;  S6e,  Classes  rurales,  part  iii.  chaps,  viii. 
and  ix. 

'  Tocqueville,  p.  299. 


FEUDALISM  IN  1789  88 

briefly  to  the  honorific  rights  still  enjoyed  by  many  of 
the  setsncurs.  These  generally  included  a  special  bench 
in^the  church  (often  constructed  at  the  expense  of  the 
plebeian  parishioners),  with  which  went  the  right  to  be 
the  first  to  receive  the  holy  water  and  the  consecrated 
bread,  to  be  incensed  the  first,  and  to  take  the  lead  at  the 
^  offering.  Other  rights  were  those  of  announcing  the  fete 
of  the  patron  saint  and  of  permitting  dances  and  games. 
l"hese  privileges  were  of  no  economic  importance,  but 
they  caused  great  irritation  among  the  deeply  religious 
populations  of  the  countryside,  who  objected  to  this 
intrusion  of  secular  rank  into  the  solemn  rites  of  the 
Church.^ 

We  come  now  to  the  last  category  of  feudal  privileges 
— the  judicial  powers  of  the  seigneurs.  Much  as  these 
had  suffered  from  the  encroachments  of  the  royal  law- 
courts,  much  as  the  central  government  had  hedged 
about  and  limited  them,  they  still  remained  in  \4gorous 
existence,  and  formed,  to  use  the  striking  metaphor  of 
M.  See,  the  keystone  of  the  feudal  edifice.  Into  the 
origin  of  these  rights,  whether  they  resulted  naturally 
from  the  powers  wielded  over  their  slaves  by  the  owners 
of  villas  in  Gallo-Roman  times,  or  whether  they  repre- 
sented the  usurpation  by  private  individuals  of  state 
jurisdiction,  we  cannot  here  stay  to  inquire.  Nor  need 
we  concern  ourselves  with  the  highly  technical  problem 
of  the  different  degrees  of  power  possessed  by  the  lords 
who  administered  high,  low,  and  middle  justice.  The 
points  which  directly  affect  our  inquiry  are  the  scope 
and  character  of  the  feudal  jurisdictions,  andjjieij^  rela- 
tion to^he  economic  system. 

Though  the  feudal  tribunals  still  took  cognisance  of 
criminal  cases,  and  lords  of  fiefs  still  possessed  their  private 
gibbets,  the  encroachments  of  the  state  courts,  had  "gone 
further  in  this  department  than  in  any  other.  Such 
cases  brought  no  revenue  to  the  judicial  officers  of  the 

*  Mathieu,  pp.  299-300. 

3 


34    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

seigneurs,  and  were  costly  to  themselves,  since  they  were 
obhged  to  discharge  in  advance  the  cost  of  conduct- 
ing prisoners  before  the  higher  courts  when  appeals  to 
these  had  been  made.  They  had  to  bear,  moreover, 
the  expenses  of  executions.  They  therefore  saw  their 
powers  diminished  without  regret,  and,  it  would  seem, 
fulfilled  such  functions  as  were  left  them  in  regard  to 
criminal  justice  with  increasing  negligence.  Nevertheless, 
the  number  of  causes  which  came  before  their  courts  was 
very  great  ;  in  Brittany,  about  nine-tenths  of  the  total 
for  the  province. 1  "  In  the  rural  provinces,"  says  M.  See, 
"  the  seigneurial  officers  are,  in  a  sense.,  the_-Qnly  persons 
invested  with  official  authority ;  they  regulate,  in 
sp vereign  f ashion^^qucst ions  of  pubhc  health,  commerce, 
industry,  victualling,  and  morals;  they  preside  over  the 
parish  assemblies."  ^  They  dealt,  in  addition,  with  a 
great  mass  of  civil  business,  and  last,  but  most  important 
from  our  point  of  view,  t^iey  handled^all  cases  of  a  feudal 
(^aracter.  If  a  peasant  refused  the  payment  of  a  due, 
or  endeavoured  to  evade  a  monopoly,  or  broke  the  regula- 
tions  concerning  game,  it  was  with  the  iudicial  officers 
pi  the  manor  that  he  had  to  do.  It  was  they  who  exacted 
the  aveux,  directed  the  corvees,  examined  contracts  of  sale 
and  exchange  so  as  to  secure  the  proper  imposition  of 
the  charge  of  lods  et  ventes.  In  a  word,  it  was  their  busi- 
ness, an^J,ay_withiri  their.pDwers^  tO-  s£curejjie  efficient 
working  of  the  system  of  agrarian  feudalism. 

Under  the  most  favourable  circumstances,  this  con- 
dition of  affairs  would  have  made  grave  abuses  possible. 
Under  those  which  in  fact  existed  such  abuses  were 
inevitable.  These  petty  officers  of  justice  were  very 
numerous, ill-paid^ ajidoften^ofbiad character.  M. Dupoht 
rrientions  a  Breton  parish  in  which  sixteen  seigneurs 
had  rights  of  justice,  and  another  in  which  there  were 
eight  separate  jurisdictions.^    Many  contemporary  com- 

*  Giflfar(J,  p.  104.  ?  See,  Classes  rurales,  p.  124. 

'  Dupont,  p.  96. 


FEUDALISM  IN  1789  35 

plaints  accuse  these  officers  of  fomenting  disputes,  of 
oppression  and  corruption  ;  they  robbed  the  widow  and 
the  orphan,  practised  fraud  in  their  financial  dealings, 
and  inserted  unjustifiable  charges  on  the  manor-rolls. 
"  It  would  be  very  desirable,"  says  the  cahieroi  Courceaux, 
"  seriously  to  examine  into  the  abuses  committed  in  the 
courts  of  the  seigneurs.  One  must  live  in  the  rural  dis- 
tricts to  form  a  just  idea  of  the  frauds  and  vexations  that 
the  officers,  greedy  for  the  substance  of  widows  and 
orphans,  commit  there  every  day  with  impunity."  ^ 
Appointed  by  favour  of  the  lords  and  holding  their 
positions  at  pleasure,  these  men  lacked  all  independence 
where  their  masters'  interests  were  concerned.  M. 
Giffard  notes  that  in  all  their  correspondence  with  their 
employers  they  speak  like  servants  and  are  so  addressed.  ^ 
M.  Jacques  Flach  sums  up  his  indictment  of  them  by 
saying  that  "  the  evil,  in  the  system  of  feudal  justice, 
infinitely  outweighed  the  good,  and  the  abuses  the  services 
rendered,"  and  this  severe  judgment  is  supported  by 
contemporary  comment  and  criticism.  Here,  for  example, 
is  the  opinicJn  of  the  inhabitants  of  Coligny,  in  Cham- 
pagne. "  Justice,"  they  declare,  "  is  badly  rendered 
in  the  country  districts  ;  the  seigneurial  officers  have 
no  knowledge  of  the  laws,  and  whether  from  ignorance 
or  cupidity,  often  pass  iniquitous  sentences.  It  is  rare 
for  the  poor  man  to  obtain  easy  access  to  the  inferior 
tribunals.  The  seigneurs,  so  skilful  and  so  severe  in 
enforcing  their  rights  against  their  vassals,  are  full  ot 
indulgence  when  there  is  a  question  of  punishing  some  one 
at  their  own  expense  ;  their  judges  are  usually  men 
devoted  to  their  interests  ;  cither  from  greed  or  respect 
of  persons  they  cast  out  all  sentiment  of  justice  to  make 
room  fgr  favouritism  and  the  vilest  spirit  of  revenge."  ^ 

We  have  now  described  in  broad  outline  the  principal 
features  of  the  system  of  agrarian  feudalism  as  it  existed 
in  France  in  I78q.     They  formed,  it  will  bfe  seen,  a  mass 

*  Poree,  p.  165.  *  Giffard,  p.  242.  •  Laurent,  p.  173. 


86    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

9I  proprietary  rights  which  permitted  one  class  to  levy 
tribute  on  the  l^our  of  another,  rights  which  were  en- 
fprced  in  the  firstTnstance  by  law-conrfc;  that  wprp  privatp 
property,  and  in  theilast  resort  by  the  whole  power  of 
the  state-system.  BSore  proceeding  farther,  we  must 
ask :  what  proportion  of  the  product  of  the  peasant's 
labour  passed  into  the  hands  of  the  privileged  class  by 
reason  of  the  feudal  dues  ?  It  would  be  most  desirable 
to  have  an  answer  to  this  question,  but,  unfortunately, 
none  of  a  precise  and  definite  character  can  be  given. 
Taine  wrote  that  the  feudal  dues  amounted  to  one-seventh 
of  the  cultivator's  net  revenue,  or  slightly  more  than 
14  per  cent,  but  he  did  not  give  statistics  or  the  grounds 
on  which  he  based  his  opinion. ^  M.  Marcel  Marion,  in 
the  excellent  study  of  economic  conditions  in  the 
Bordelais  to  which  reference  has  already  been  made, 
puts  forward  an  estimate  to  the  effect  that  in  the  area 
investigated  by  him  the  feudal  dues  amounted  to  11  or 
12  per  cent  of  the  peasant's  income.  He  is  careful  to 
point  out,  however,  that  this  figure  is  only  "  vague  and 
hypothetical." 

In  fact,  the  materials  for  a  definite  answer 'to  this 
question  are  not  now  available,  and  only  a  minute  study 
of  the  national  and  local  archives  of  France  could  supply 
them.  Conditions  varied  infinitely  from  province  to 
province,  still  more  from  parish  to  parish  and  manor 
to  manor.  It  is  entirely  unsafe  to  generalise  from 
particular  instances,  and  this  fact  can  easily  be  demon- 
strated by  a  few  examples.  The  inhabitants  of  Espere 
(Quercy)  drew  up  in  1789  a  sort  of  balance-sheet  for  their 
village,  the  total  gross  income  of  which  they  valued  at 
26,400  livres.  Of  this  the  tithes  carried  off  2200  livres, 
the  direct  taxes  4197  livres,  10  so/5,  and  the  feudal  dues 
only  961  livres.  If  we  founded  our  opinion  on  an  isolated 
case  of  this  character  we  should  conclude  that  the  dues 
were  a  comparatively  trivial  item  in  the  peasant's  budget, 

*  Ancien  Rigitne,  vol.  ii.  p.  323. 


FEUDALISM  IN  1789  87 

less  than  2  litres  per  head  per  annum .  The  case  of  another 
parish  in  the  same  province,  however,  shows  that  such  a 
conclusion  would  be  quite  erroneous.  The  total  income 
of  this  second  parish — Catus — was  44,000  livres,  of  which 
the  tithes  took  3920,  the  taxes  11,930,  and  the  feudal 
dues  5 1 12.  In  this  last  figure  the  casual  charges  are  not 
included,  so  it  is  really  an  understatement  of  the  true 
financial  position. ^  Nor  does  the  case  of  Catus  stand 
by  itself,  as  the  following  table  will  show.  The  parishes 
mentioned  are  all  in  the  Cotentin.* 

Direct  Taxes.        Feudal  Dues. 
Livres.  Livres. 


Bourey    . 

.     1786 

1600 

Brehal     . 

.     6694 

3650 

Colombe  . 

.     9010 

4500 

Mesnil-Garnier 

.     6266 

2400 

Montaigu-les-Bois 

•     3436 

3000 

Trelly       . 

.     9820 

5925 

In  certain  of  these  cases  it  will  be  seen  that  the  dues 
nearly  equal  the  taxes  ;  in  others,  they  amount  to  more 
than  one-half  of  them.  The  dues  paid  by  the  parish  of 
Ruffigne,  in  Brittany,  actually  exceeded  the  taxes  in 
amount,  the  former  being  3793  livres  and  the  latter  only 
2365.^  The  inhabitants  of  Bourbriac,  in  the  same  pro- 
vince, calculated  that  a  peasant  proprietor  whose  total 
income  was  300  livres  would  be  obhged  to  expend  53  on 
the  tithes  and  140  on  the  feudal  charges  of  all  kinds."* 
M.  Marcel  Marion  states  that  there  were  parishes  in  the 
Agenais  where  the  dues  equalled  the  royal  tallage  ;  but 
this,  it  must  be  added,  was  exceptional ;  as  a  rule,  they 
were  less  than  the  tithe,  still  more  so  than  the  taxes. 
The  cens  of  3000  bushels  of  grain  paid  by  the  village  of 
Pierre-Morains,  in  Champagne,  amounted  to  more  than 
a  quarter  of  its  average  annual  product  of  com  of  all 

*  See  the  cahiers  of  these  parishes  in  Fourasti6's  collection. 
■  See  the  notes  to  their  cahiers  in  Bridrey,  vol.  i. 

•  S6e  and  L6sort,  vol.  ii.  p.  3S2.  *  Dupont,  p.  42. 


38    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

kinds.  The  people  of  Montferrat,  in  Dauphine,  calcu- 
lated that  the  feudal  dues  cost  them  one-third  of  their 
annual  revenue.  The  cahier  of  Palluaud  estimates  them 
as  amounting  to  between  a  quarter  and  a  third  of  the 
product  of  the  land,  and  that  of  Loupiac  asserts  that 
they  equal  the  direct  taxes  in  value. ^ 

It  is  clear,  then,  that  we  cannot  safely  generalise  and 
say  that  a  certain  percentage"of  the  peasant's  income 
was  absorbed  by  his  feudal  obligations.  But  it  is 
equally  clear  that  these  were  often  a  heavy  burden,  a 
burden  which  was  the  more  resented  since  it  was  imposed 
in  peculiarly  vexatious  and  irritating  ways  ;  as  M.  Marion 
says,  when  describing  the  popular  attitude  towards 
feudahsm  in  1789,  "if  it  imposes  hghter  sacrifices  than 
the  royal  fiscal  system  or  the  tithe,  those  that  it  does  im- 
pose are  more  frequent,  more  disagreeable, more  vexatious, 
and  perhaps,  all  things  considered,  more  unpopular."  2 

The  foregoing  discussion,  inconclusive  though  it  may 
seem,  has  given  us  at  least  some  insight  into  the  economics 
of  agrarian  feudahsm.  It  has  also  served  to  remind  us 
that  in, addition  to  the  dues  and  the  taxes,  a  third  charge 
— the  tithe — weighed  upon  the  peasant's  labour.  Though 
radically  different  in  origin  from  the  dues,  it  formed,  as 
M.  Aulard  says,^  a  part  of  the  complexum  feudale  ;  and  as 
the  revolutionary  legislation  in  regard  to  it  was  intimately 
bound  up  with  that  on  the  feudal  rights,  we  may  con- 
sider them  together  for  the  purposes  of  this  book. 

"  The  tithe."  says  M.  Henri  Marion.  "  was  a  charge, 
generally  paid  in  kind,  which  was  levied  upon  cattle  and 
the  produce  of  the  soil,  for  the  threefold  purpose  of 
assuring  the  subsistence  of  ministers  of  rehgion,  of  main- 
taining  the  fabrics  of  churches,  and  of  assisting  the  poor."  * 
This  description  was  theoretically  as  true  in  1789  as  in 

^  Marion,  Bordeaux  ;    Laurent,  p.  498  ;    Sagnac  and  Caron,  p.  254  • 
Boissonade,  p.  214  ;  Fourastie,  p.  220. 

2  Marion,  Bordeaux.  3  Aulard,  p.  158. 

*  Marion,  Dime  eccUsiastique ,  p.  11. 


FEUDALISM  IN  1789  39 

the  days  of  Charlemagne  ;  actually,  it  no  longer  corre- 
sponded to  the  real  facts  of  the  situation.  The  tax 
itself  was  the  same,  but  the  purposes  to  which  its  product 
w'as  "^applied  had  altered.  To  begin  with,  many  lay 
persons  had  usurped  a  property  in  the  tithes  and  levied 
them  in  the  same  manner  as  a  feudal  due,  whence  their 
name  of  infeudated  tithes.  In  this  case,  of  course,  the 
product  was  applied  to  purely  secular  purposes.  In 
addition  to  this  process  of  usurpation — which  still  went  on 
in  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries — the  right 
to  levy  tithes  had  tended  to  become  the  monopoly  of  the 
higher  ranks  of  the  clergy,  of  the  bishops  and  the  great 
ecclesiastical  corporations.  It  seems  to  have  been 
exceptional  for  a  parish  priest  to  own  all  the  tithes  of  his 
cure.  The  impoverishment  of  the  lower  clergy  went  so 
far  that  the  central  govefhment  was  obliged  to  intervene, 
and  by  two  edicts  of  1768  and  1786  to  raise  the  "  fitting 
portion  "  of  the  tithes  handed  by  the  impropriator  to 
the  cure  from  a  theoretical  minimum  of  300  livres  to  700. 
And  it  seems  clear  that  the  second  edict  was  never  pro- 
perly applied.  The  unfortunate  lower  clergy  were 
obhged  to  add  to  their  scanty  incomes  by  charging  fees 
for  the  performance  of  ceremonies — which  aroused  lively 
resentment  in  the  breasts  of  their  parishioners — and  the 
upkeep  of  the  churches  and  the  assistance  of  the  poor 
became,  to  a  large  extent,  charged  upon  the  general 
public.  The  great  majority  of  the  tithe-owners  were,  in 
short,  in  the  same  position  as  absentee  landlords  ;  they 
levied  tribute  upon  the  labour  of  communities  they  never 
saw,  and  for  whom  they  performed  no  visible  service. 
The  parishes  saw  the  cream  of  their  harvests  carried 
awgv  by  the  agents  of  wealthy  ecclesiastics  or  decadent 
monastic,  bodies,  while  thev  sank  inta_.dg.bt_mid£r_ the 
burden  of  maintaining  the  churches  in  repair. 

The  tithe  was  essentiallv  a  tax  upon  the  produce  of 
the  soil,  and  as  such  it  was  quite  exceptional  for  it  to  be 
paid  in  money.    The  usual  procedure  wasTor  tTie  agents 


40    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

of  the  owners  or  of  those  to  whom  they  had  farmed  the 
tithes  (a  common  practice)  to  visit  the  fields  at  harvest 
time  and  carry  off  their  lawful  share  of  the  crops.  The 
amount  of  that  share  was  not,  as  its  name  would  imply, 
a  tenth  of  the  whole  ;  the  proportion  of  the  harvest 
claimed  by  the  tithe-owners  varied  infinitely  from  parish 
to  parish,  even  from  field  to  field.  Moreover,  different 
crops  were  charged  at  different  rates  ;  the  tithe  of  wine, 
for  example,  was  usually  a  smaller  fraction  than  that 
of  corn.  In  some  provinces  the  tithe  was  very  small ; 
in  Savoy,  for  instance,  a  fiftieth  or  sixtieth.  Elsewhere, 
it  was  as  high  as  a  fifth  or  a  sixth.  Between  these  two 
extremes  every  conceivable  figure  was  to  be  found,  and 
M,  Marion,  after  a  detailed  examination  of  the  facts, 
decides  that  the  average  proportion  for  the  whole 
country  was  a  thirteenth.^  As  regards  the  value  of  the 
total  product,  an  estimate  of  1790  gave  the  figures  of 
123  million  livres  for  the  ecclesiastical,  and  10  millions 
for  the  infeudated  tithes.  The  modern  calculations 
approximate  more  or  less  closely  to  this  estimate  ;  M. 
Marion  thinks  that  "  we  may  adopt  the  figures  100  to 
no  millions,  but  with  all  the  caution  necessar}^  for  a 
valuation  founded  on  no  very  secure  basis."  ^ 

This  charge — heavier,  it  should  be  noted,  than  any  one 
of  the  direct  taxes — was  by  no  means  the  whole  social 
cost  of  the  tithe.  In  this  must  be  included  the  expenses 
"of  its  collection,  and  the  waste  of  money  and  effort  on 
the  innumerable  lawsuits  to  which  it  gave  rise.  There 
were  so  many  uncertainties  in  regard  to  it,  so  many 
opportunities  for  disputes,  that  conflicts  between  those 
who  received  and  those  who  paid  were  incessant.  One 
fruitful  source  of  trouble  was  the  question  as  to  whether 
newly  introduced  crops  were  or  were  not  subject  to  the 
charge.  A  good  example  of  this  type  of  dispute  is 
furnished  by  the  cahier  of  Nadillac,  in  Quercy.  The 
principal   crop  raised  in  the  parish  was  maize,  but  its 

1  Marion,  Dime  eccUsiastique,  p.  72.  *  Ibid.  p.  116. 


FEUDALISM  IN  1789  41 

introduction  had  been  comparatively  recent  ;  three 
generations  before,  the  inhabitants  alleged,  it  was  absol- 
utely unknown.  The  tithe-owner,  however,  demanded 
his  share  of  the  new  crop,  and  the  peasants,  "  for  the 
sake  of  peace  or  from  reUgious  principles,"  acceded  to 
this  claim.  The  owner  was  wilUng  at  first  to  accept 
their  voluntary  offerings,  but  finally  changed  front  and 
demanded  a  proportion  fixed  by  himself  ;  the  peasants 
refused,  and  at  the  time  the  cahier  was  dra\\Ti  up  a 
lawsuit  was  in  progress. ^  The  more  enhghtened  members 
of  the  clerical  order  themselves  recognised  the  injurious 
results  of  this  method  of  raising  church  revenues.  "  The 
tithes,  which  were  long  the  securest  patrimony  of  the 
churches,  are  to-day  a  continual  cause  of  conflict  and 
the  most  embarrassed  portion  of  their  revenue.  The 
method  of  levying  them,  their  amount,  the  crops  on 
which  they  ought  to  be  charged,  are  subjects  of  discussion 
before  all  the  tribunals."  ^  When,  in  1788,  a  bishop 
in  the  Assembly  of  Notables  defined  the  tithe  as  "  a 
voluntary  offering,  drawn  from  the  piety  of  the  faithful," 
the  Due  de  Larochefoucauld  flung  back  the  answer,  "  A 
voluntary  offering  which  is  at  this  moment  the  cause  of 
40,000  lawsuits  !  "  2  Round  numbers  such  as  this  are 
never  to  be  taken  Uterally  ;  still,  the  anecdote  bears 
witness  to  the  widespread  confusion  and  discontent 
caused  by  the  tithes,  discontent  of  which  we  shall  see 
fresh  evidence  in  a  later  chapter. 

One  final  question  remains  before  we  bring  tliis  long 
description  of  agrarian  feudalism  to  a  close  :  was  this 
system  worsening  during  the  generation  which  preceded 
the  Revolution  ?  Was  there,  in  brief,  a  "  feudal  re- 
action "  ?  The  theory  that  there  was  dates  from  the 
publication  of  Boncerf's  historic  pamphlet,  Les  in- 
convenients     des     droits     feodaux,    in     1776.     "  Feudal 

^  Four3isti6,  p.  250. 

»  Cahier  of  the  Clergy  of  Poitou,  in  M4ge,  p.  38. 

»  Madelin  (L.),  La  Rivolution,  p.  6. 


42    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

tyranny,"  he  wrote,  "  awakes  furious  after  a  century  of 
slumber  and  of  silence  "  ;  and  such  modern  authorities  as 
Cherest,  Sagnac,  Mege  and  Loutchisky  have  supported 
this  view.i  Their  arguments  may  be  briefly  summarised 
as  follows.  In  the  last  third  of  the  eighteenth  century 
the  privileged  classes  generally  began  to  enforce  their 
rights  with  increasing  harshness.  Many  of  them  were 
crippled  with  debts  ;  all  felt  the  steady  increase  of  prices 
which  seems  to  have  been  a  marked  feature  of  the 
economic  hfe  of  Western  Europe  at  this  period.  Their 
real  incomes  were  dechning  with  the  fall  in  the  value 
of  money.  Spurred  on  by  need,  they  exacted  the  last 
penny  of  their  dues,  demanded  arrears  of  rents  (there 
was  no  prescription  for  twenty-nine  years),  revised  their 
manor-rolls,  and  obtained  fresh  aveux  from  their  depend- 
ents, whose  charges,  both  regular  and  casual,  were  thus 
heavily  increased  at  the  moment  when  they,  too,  were 
suffering  from  the  rise  in  the  cost  of  living. 

M.  Aulard  has  recently  subjected  this  hypothesis  to 
vigorous  criticism.  He  urges  that  if  feudalism  excited 
more  complaints  in  this  than  in  the  preceding  period,  it 
was  because  the  current  of  ideas  was  setting  steadily 
against  it.  The  views  of  such  writers  as  Turgot,  Voltaire, 
and  Boncerf  had  filtered  slowly  down  to  the  mass  of  the 
people,  whose  natural  dishke  of  the  charges  which  weighed 
upon  them  was  thus  sharpened  by  criticism  of  their 
rationahty  and  justice.  Thus  the  undoubted  fact  that 
the  cahiers  abound  with  complaints  as  to  exactions  of 
arrears  of  rents  and  of  the  chicanery  of  the  agents  who 
used  false  measures  for  testing  the  dues  paid  in  kind, 
cannot  be  regarded  as  decisive  evidence.  "  There  is  no 
certainty,"  he  writes,  "as  to  the  degree  of  aggravation 
of  feudalism  under  Louis  XVI,  if,  indeed,  such  aggravation 
took  place  at  all."  ^     This  criticism  is  valuable  so  far  as 

^  Cf.  Ch6rest,  vol.  i.  p.  49  ;  Sagnac,  p.  65  ;  M^ge,  p.  77  ;  Loutchisky, 
Classes  agricoles,  p.  loi. 
*  Aulard,  p.  69. 


FEUDALISM  IN  1789  43 

it  goes,  but  cannot  be  held  to  answer  our  original  question 
in  the  negative.  Concrete  facts  may  be  brought  forward 
on  both  sides  of  the  discussion.  On  the  one  hand,  there 
are  those  pre\dously  cited  as  to  the  fixity  of  the  cens 
over  very  long  periods  ;  on  the  other,  the  evidence  as  to 
the  remarkable  increases  in  the  revenues  derived  from 
seigneurial  monopolies.  Both  these  sets  of  statistics, 
however,  refer  to  a  single  province,  Brittany,  and  it  is 
desirable  to  extend  the  range  of  our  inquiry. 

Now  it  is  possible  to  bring  together  from  the  cahiers 
and  other  contemporary  documents  a  number  of  instances 
in  which  lords  of  fiefs  are  seen  increasing  their  dues  or 
endeavouring  to  enforce  rights  for  which  they  have  no 
legal  title.  These  facts,  as  will  be  seen,  are  drawn  from 
a  large  number  of  different  regions.  Thus,  in  1790,  the 
municipalities  of  two  Provencal  villages,  Peypin-d'Aigues 
and  Saint-Martin-de-la-Brasque,  when  describing  their 
feudal  burdens  to  the  National  Assembly,  mentioned 
that  a  particular  due  had  been  doubled  in  fifty  years. 
The  cens  on  a  piece  of  land  had  originally  been  fixed  at 
12  sols  ;  ten  years  later  it  was  raised  to  16,  twenty  j'ears 
after  that  it  was  raised  to  20,  "  and  a  few  years  since  it 
was  levied  at  24  sols."  In  the  same  year,  the  inhabitants 
of  Germeville,  in  Angoumois,  gave  very  definite  par- 
ticulars of  a  case  of  usurpation.  The  principal  products 
of  the  district  were  flax  and  hemp,  which  were  worked 
up  by  the  inhabitants  and  "  furnished  a  very  considerable 
branch  of  commerce."  From  time  immemorial  they 
had  enjoyed  the  right  of  steeping  their  raw  material  in  a 
sheet  of  water  in  order  to  separate  the  fibres  and  prepare 
it  for  manufacture.  The  father  of  the  existing  seigneur 
had  compelled  three  of  the  inhabitants  to  pay  him  an 
annual  due  in  flax  and  hemp  of  the  value  of  5  livres 
for  the  enjoyment  of  this  right,  but  his  son,  "  still  more 
devoured  by  the  immoderate  thirst  for  gold,  endeavoured 
to  treble  this  tyrannical  charge.  Several  of  his  co- 
seigneiirs,  shocked  by  the  injustice  of  this  demand,  gave 


4,4,    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

consent  to  the  free  use  of  the  water,  but  Sieur  Robert 
Faure,  who  never  releases  his  prey,  summoned  sixteen 
of  the  unhappy  cultivators  before  the  court  at  Poitiers. 
.  .  .  He  has  used  every  kind  of  chicanery  to  lengthen 
the  suit  and  augment  the  mass  of  charges."  It  had 
already  cost  more  than  5000  livres.  The  inhabitants  of 
another  village  near  Montmedy,  in  Lorraine,  protested 
that  the  local  lord  had  endeavoured  to  levy  a  right  of 
terrage  on  certain  lands  which  formed  an  enclave  in  the 
manor,  although  a  legal  decision,  given  as  long  ago  as 
1604,  had  declared  these  properties  to  be  free  from  the 
charge  in  question.  The  commune  of  Limousis,  near 
Carcassonne,  was  accustomed  to  pay  the  tasqtte  (a  kind 
of  champart)  for  certain  lands  at  the  rate  of  a  twenty- 
second  part  of  the  crop.  When  the  lordship  changed 
hands  in  1774,  the  new  seigneur  immediately  renewed 
his  manor-roll  and  doubled  the  charge.  In  this  case  it 
seems  probable  that  the  lord  had  a  legal  right  to  the 
increased  due,  but  it  is  mentioned  here  as  an  example  of 
that  revival  of  dormant  rights  which  is  alleged  to  have 
been  so  marked  a  feature  of  the  feudal  reaction.^ 

Passing  to  other  sources  of  information  we  note  that 
the  community  of  Le  Mesnil-sur-Oger  (Champagne)  in 
its  cahier  declared  that  it  had  always  paid  a  due  to  its 
lord  for  every  butt  of  wine  sold  in  the  place.  The  amount 
was  fixed  at  5  sols  in  1768,  but  in  1779  the  charge  was 
arbitrarily  raised  to  7  sols,  6  deniers,  an  increase  of  50  per 
cent.  When  the  cahier  was  drawn  up  in  1789  the  resulting 
lawsuit  was  still  in  progress.  In  the  cahier  of  Nuisement- 
sur-Coole  in  the  same  province,  we  read  that  the  seigneur 
has  attempted  to  enforce  a  right  of  terrage  upon  eleven 
of  the  inhabitants  ;  neither  he  nor  his  ancestors  had  ever 
levied  this  due  before,  and  he  has  no  title  to  show  for  it. 
There  seems  little  doubt  as  to  the  truth  of  this  last 
allegation,  for  when,  in  1775,  the  tribunal  of  the  hailliage 
of   Chalons   ordered   Lelarge   d'Eaubonne,   the   lord  in 

*  Sagnac  and  Caron,  pp.  267,  366,  370,  407. 


FEUDALISM  IN  1789  45 

question,  to  produce  his  title-deeds,  he  refused  and 
appealed  to  the  ParHament.  The  same  worthy  also 
endeavoured  to  obtain  an  increase  in  the  rate  at  which 
the  lods  et  ventes  were  le\aed.  Both  these  matters  had 
been  before  the  courts  for  fifteen  years  in  1789 !  ^  M. 
Kovalewsky  cites  the  case  of  a  village  near  Alen^on 
where  a  proprietor  had  been  in  the  habit  of  demanding 
5  sous  from  each  inhabitant  for  every  bushel  of  flour 
cooked  in  the  seigneurial  oven.  He  raised  the  charge  to 
7  sous,  after  which  the  domain  changed  hands,  and 
the  new  proprietor  immediately  increased  it  to  9, 
invoking  the  higher  cost  of  fuel  as  his  excuse.'  M. 
Karciew,  who  is  a  strong  supporter  of  the  theory  of  a  "' 
feudal  reaction,  gives  some  interesting  facts  in  support 
of  it.  "  Eight  years  before  the  Revolution,"  he  says, 
"  many  properties  in  the  hailliage  of  Nemours  paid 
chatnpart  (which  they  had  escaped  up  till  that  date)  for 
the  first  time,  the  only  reason  being  that  the  lands  which 
surrounded  them  were  subjected  to  it.  In  the  same 
year  and  for  the  same  reason,  a  seigneur  of  Touraine  in- 
troduced the  terrage  at  the  rate  of  a  ninth  of  the  harvest." 
The  same  authority  cites  the  petition  of  the  inhabitants 
of  the  manor  of  Montjoye-Vaufrey,  who  declared  that 
"  formerly,  the  gardens,  houses,  and  orchards  were 
exempt  from  mainmorte  ;  now,  the  seigneur  lays  hands 
on  everything  in  the  case  of  death  without  the  necessary 
heirs.  .  .  .  Within  the  last  ten  years  he  has  arrogated 
to  himself  the  right  of  reteyiue  on  the  greater  part  of  the 
properties  sold  in  this  domain."  "  Towards  the  middle 
of  the  eighteenth  century,"  continues  M.  Kareiew,  "  the 
farmer  of  seigneurial  dues  in  the  manor  of  La  Molle  im- 
posed a  special  tax  on  cattle,  and  this  tax,  in  a  period  of 
between  thirty  and  forty  years,  was  increased  one  and 
a  half  times  for  the  lesser  beasts,  and  twice  for  the 
greater."  ^    Since  the  fifteenth  century  a  feudal  toll  had 

*  Laurent,  pp.  390,  484-5.  »  Kovalewsky,  vol.  i.  p.  224. 

•  Kar6iew,  p.  96^et  seq. 


46    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

been  levied  on  commodities  passing  under  or  over  the 
bridges  of  the  Yonne  to  the  town  of  Sens.  In  1772  these 
charges  began  to  be  levied  at  the  gates  of  the  town  also, 
an  obviously  illegal  extension  of  the  ancient  privilege, 
and  denounced  as  such  by  contemporary  opinion.^  In 
its  cahier  the  Breton  parish  of  Laille  alleged  that  the 
fumage  or  feudal  chimney-tax  had  been  imposed  "  in  the 
last  twenty  or  thirty  years  on  many  villages  which  had 
always  been  free  from  it,"  and  MM.  See  and  Lesort 
quote  a  document  of  1744  which  shows  that  this  state- 
ment was  not  without  foundation,  since  it  describes  this 
right  as  being  constantly  extended  to  an  increasing 
number  of  tenements. ^  In  view  of  these  facts,  it  is 
difficult  to  dismiss  the  theory  of  the  reaction  as  entirely 
without  foundation,  even  if  they  be  judged  insufficient 
to  establish  its  truth  beyond  dispute. 

As  far  as  the  renovation  of  the  terriers  is  concerned, 
there  seems  little  doubt  that  the  movement  in  this  direc- 
tion, which  had  already  begun  in  1750,  was  greatly 
strengthened  after  1780  ;  both  MM.  Mege  and  Loutch- 
isky  agree  as  to  this  date.  Such  renovations  were,  as  we 
have  seen,  both  costly  and  vexatious  to  the  peasant 
class.  Finally,  it  must  be  said  that  the  theory  of  a 
feudal  reaction  does  certainly  fit  in  with  the  tendency 
towards  strengthening  the  position  of  the  nol^ility  in  the 
Church  and  the  Army  which  was  so  apparent  under 
Louis  XVI.  Perhaps  the  safest  position  to  adopt  in  the 
pTesent  state  of  our  knowledge  is  that  of  M.  Marion,  who, 
while  expressing  some  doubt  as  to  the  general  character 
of  the  alleged  reaction,  declares  that  it  is  impossible  to 
deny  that  there  is  some  foundation  for  belief  in  its 
existence.  "  The  principal  cause,"  he  writes,  "  appears 
to  us  to  have  been  the  marked  progress  in  agriculture 
realised  during  the  second  half  of  the  eighteenth  century  ; 
the  notable  rise  in  the  price  of  agricultural  ^oinmodities, 

1  Poree,  p.  5. 

2  S6e  and  Lesort, ^vol.ii.  p.  211,  and  note  to  p.  182. 


FEUDALISM  IN  1789  47 

especially  of  corn,  and  the  general  increase  in  the  rents 
of  farms.  Many  seigneurs,  hard  pressed  for  money, 
many  middle-class  men  who  had  acquired  estates  and 
were  quite  naturally  tempted  to  obtain  as  much  as  possible 
from  their  new  possessions,  wished  to  profit  by  the  in- 
crease of  revenue  with  which  the  general  condition  of  the 
market  pro\ided  them.  They  revived  old  rights  that 
had  fallen  into  disuse  ;  hunted  out  forgotten  titles  ;  paid 
more  attention  to  their  manor-rolls,  demanded  acknow- 
ledgments more  frequently  than  in  the  past  .  .  .  and 
proceeded  with  greater  punctuaUty  to  levy  the  feudal 
rights  which  had  been  singularly  neglected  in  the  course 
of  the  eighteenth  century."  ^ 

One  effect  of  this  increase  in  prices  and  of  progress 
in  the  technique  of  agriculture  is~  worth  particular  notice, 
since   it   affords   an   interesting   comparison   with   con- 
temporary events   in   England.     There,  the   movement 
towards  the  enclosure  of  open  fields  and  common  lands 
was  the  direct  outcome  of  these  two  causes,   and  its 
disastrous   consequences   for    the    labourers   and    small 
farmers  have  been  admirably  described  by  Mr.  and  Mrs. 
Hammond. 2    In  France,  also,  such  a  movement  arose, 
to  be  checked  abruptly  by  the  Revolution.     Throughout 
the  country  there  were  to  be  found  woods,  pastures,  and 
waste  lands  over  which  the  peasants  had  customary  rights. 
For  the  rural  population  these  were  of  capital  importance, 
not  only  because  they  supplemented  the  products  of  their 
holdings,  but  because  they  made  the  cultivation  of  the 
latter   possible.      "  The    possession    of    pastures,"    says 
'Ir.  R.  H.  Tawney  in  his  book  on  the  English  peasantry 
f  the  sixteenth  century,  "  was  not  only  a  source  of  sub- 
idiary  income,  but  also  quite  indispensable  to  the  main- 
enance  of  the  arable  holding.  ...  It  is  a  mistake  to 
hink  of  the   engrossing  of  commons  ...  as  affecting 
he  peasant  only  in  so  far  as  he  was  a  shepherd  or  a 

\Marion,  Bordeaux, 

*  gge  their  Village  Lahmtrer,  9Jso  Levy,  Larffe  find  Small  Holdings. 


48    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

grazier.  On  the  contrary,  it  struck  a  blow  at  an  indis- 
pensable adjunct  of  his  arable  holding,  an  adjunct  without 
which  the  ploughland  itself  was  unprofitable  ;  for  to 
work  the  ploughland  one  must  have  the  wherewithal  to 
feed  the  plough  beasts,"  ^  The  same  considerations  held 
good  in  France  two  centuries  later ;  their  common 
rights  were  vitally  necessary  to  the  peasants.  They 
held  them  on  various  grounds,  which  gave  very  different 
degrees  of  security.  Sometimes  it  was  by  express  title 
or  charter,  sometimes  in  actual  property  ;  sometimes 
they  had  only  a  right  of  usage  sanctioned  by  long- 
standing custom.  Throughout  the  eighteenth  century 
these  rights  were  attacked  by  the  seigneurs  with  increasing 
vehemence,  A  royal  edict  of  1669  had  facilitated  the 
putting  into  operation  of  triages  or  partitions  of  the 
woods  and  commons  by  which  lords  of  manors  received 
full  rights  of  property  over  a  portion  of  the  whole.  But 
this  procedure  was  hedged  about  by  too  many  restrictions, 
and  was  not  sufficiently  profitable  to  the  seigneurs  ; 
accordingly,  in  Brittany  at  any  rate,  they  preferred  to 
use  a  method  of  partition  known  as  cantonnement,  by 
which  they  received  two-thirds  instead  of  one-third  of 
the  land  or  woods  divided.  The  jurisprudence  of  the 
Parliaments — those  strongholds  of  privilege — went  even 
farther,  and  in  Brittany  declared  rights  founded  on 
"  prescription  and  long  usage  "  to  be  of  no  effect  ;  where 
no  express  title  existed  the  lords  were  at  liberty  to  enclose 
the  commons.  Many  seigneurs  adopted  the  expedient  of 
leasing  out  the  common  land  to  farmers,  mostly  middle- 
class  persons,  who  could  afford  heavy  rents  and  the 
expenses  of  putting  the  land  into  cultivation.  Even 
legal  titles  and  charters  sometimes  failed  to  protect  the 
peasants.  A  parish  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Alen90ii 
enjoyed  chartered  rights  of  pasture  over  400  arpents  of 
land.  Nevertheless,  the  agents  of  the  Due  de  Provence 
(the  future  Louis  XVIII)  leased  this  land  to  two  or  three 
^  Tawney,  The  Agrarian  Problem  in  the  Sixteenth  Century,  p.  240. 


FEUDALISM  IN  1789  49 

individuals,  and  thus,  by  a  stroke  of  the  pen,  deprived 
the  inhabitants  of  a  valuable  property. ^  All  over  the 
country  we  find  this  movement  in  progress,  as  the  cahiers 
and  other  contemporary  documents  show. 

"  The  seigneurs,"  says  the  Third  Estate  of  Bar-sur- 
Seine,  "  have  seized  the  communal  lands  of  their  parishes, 
and  by  means  of  their  personal  influence  and  of  the  fear 
they  inspire,  have  stifled  the  complaints  of  the  pro- 
prietors and  overborne  their  opposition."  ^  The  cahier 
of  La  Ferri^re-Bochard  describes  very  well  the  importance 
of  the  commons  for  the  peasants,  and  the  damage  that 
resulted  from  their  loss.  "  The  use  of  the  commons,"  it 
says,  "is  an  important  matter  for  the  inhabitants  of  the 
rural  districts  ;  there  is  scarcely  a  parish  which  does  not 
possess  them.  For  some  they  serve  as  pastures  for  the 
draught  beasts  ;  for  others,  as  a  means  of  feeding  a  few 
cattle  from  which  they  derive  their  subsistence  and  that 
of  their  famihes.  But  it  occurs  that  proprietors  of  fiefs 
take  to  themselves  the  right  of  seizing  these  commons  ; 
they  thus  deprive  the  neediest  class  of  its  sole  resource. 
Very  often,  also,  they  plant  hedges  on  them,  and  these 
hedges  harbour  an  infinity  of  vermin  which  devastates 
properties."  ^  That  these  complaints  were  not  merely 
theoretical  is  shown  by  the  case  of  the  parish  of  Ponthole. 
In  1742  it  possessed  6000  sheep  ;  by  1764  this  number 
had  been  reduced  to  300  ;  in  the  interval  it  had  been 
deprived  of  its  common  pastures.*  At  Auxey-le-Grand, 
in  Burgundy,  the  seigneur  enclosed  a  considerable  extent 
of  pasture  over  which  the  inhabitants  had  long  enjoyed 
a  right  of  usage,  and  at  the  same  time  engrossed  the 
grazing  ground  which  belonged  to  the  parish.  He  also 
closed  several  rights  of  way  by  which  the  peasants  had 
reached  their  fields,  "  so  that  they  are  obhged  to  carry 

1  Kovalewsky,  vol.  i.  p.  133.  S«  alio,  $*•,  Claaet  rurales,  pt.  iii. 
chap.  XV. 

'  Kovalewsky,  vol.  1.  p.  133. 

»  Duval,  p.  157.  ♦  Kar4iew,  p.  623. 

4 


50    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

their  crops  in  their  arms  round  these  walls  and  to  go 
altogether  a  quarter  of  a  league  farther  than  they  were 
wont."  Loyette,  another  Burgundian  parish,  had  for 
centuries  had  the  use  of  certain  lands  for  pastures,  in 
return  for  which  it  paid  an  annual  rent  in  grain.  The 
seigneur,  some  years  before  the  Revolution,  suddenly 
thought  fit  to  lease  out  this  land  to  three  individuals, 
thus  depriving  the  rest  of  the  inhabitants  of  their  rights. 
When  they  contested  the  matter,  the  Parliament  of  Dijon 
decided  against  them,  so  that  they  found  themselves 
saddled  with  the  costs  of  the  proceedings,  "  which  were 
so  heavy  that  they  are  all  plunged  into  the  deepest 
poverty."  ^  At  Montjoye-Vaufrey  the  greed  of  the  lord 
"  leads  him  to  appropriate  all  the  communal  forests, 
which  he  sells  for  his  own  profit."  * 

The  case  of  Maumusson,  in  Brittany,  is  interesting 
enough  to  be  worth  describing  in  some  detail.  In  1696 
the  inhabitants  concluded  a  transaction  with  the  lord 
of  the  manor  by  which  they  acquired  the  right  to  use 
certain  waste  lands  and  woods  in  the  parish  in  return 
for  an  annual  payment  of  32  livres,  10  sols.  The  seigneur 
reserved  to  himself  the  right  of  triage,  which,  if  put  into 
force,  would  give  him  another  large  portion  of  common 
land.  This  right,  however,  was  not  exercised,  and  the  rent 
was  regularly  paid  until  1768,  when  the  then  lord  threat- 
ened to  make  use  of  it  for  the  purpose  of  letting  out  his 
portion,  unless  the  vassals  renounced  their  claims  under 
the  agreement  of  1696.  The  inhabitants,  as  a  whole,  were 
hostile,  but  "  four  rich  bourgeois,  proprietors  of  some 
pieces  of  land  in  the  parish,  agents  of  the  seigneur,  and 
guided  by  their  own  interests,"  called  a  parish  meeting 
to  agree  to  the  lord's  demands  ;  150  persons  were  present, 
but  only  nine  of  them  were  willing  to  sign  a  declaration 
in  support  of  this  proposal.  Nevertheless,  the  lord 
entered  into  a  fresh  transaction  with  this  handful  of 
people  by  which  it  was  agreed  "  that  the  parishioners 

*  Sagnac  and  Caron,  pp.  567  and  585.  «  Kar6iew,  p.  83. 


FEUDALISM  IN  1789  51 

of  Maumusson  cede  to  their  seigneur  all  the  woods 
situated  on  the  common,  and  that  after  he  shall  have 
exploited  them  for  his  own  profit,  he  will  lease  the  said 
common  to  the  inhabitants  in  lots  proportionate  to  their 
property." 

This  agreement  was  put  into  force  ;  the  woods,  worth 
more  than  40,000  livres,  were  cut  down  and  a  leasing-out 
of  the  common  land  took  place.  But  this  was  not 
arranged  in  the  manner  specified.  The  people  had  been 
led  to  beUeve  that  in  addition  to  the  land  they  had  always 
enjoyed  the  seigneur  would  include  the  portion  which 
fell  to  him  under  the  right  of  triage.  Not  only  did  he 
fail  to  do  this,  but  instead  of  partitioning  the  land 
equitably  he  accorded  it  to  the  wealthiest  inhabitants, 
the  "  four  rich  bourgeois  "  naturally  receiving  the  hon's 
share.  The  rest  of  the  inhabitants  carried  the  matter 
before  the  courts,  but  the  suit  was  so  long  drawn  out  and 
the  expenses  so  heavy,  that  they  were  finally  compelled 
to  abandon  it.  What  followed  is  best  desciibed  in  their 
own  words.  "Of  all  those  who  dared  to  claim  their 
rights,  not  one  has  escaped  the  seigneur's  vengeance  ; 
some  have  been  ruined  and  hve  in  the  most  frightful 
misery  ;  others  have  died  of  the  hardships  they  endured 
in  captivity,  and  others  again  have  lost  their  reason 
through  their  sufferings  and  the  spectacle  of  their 
relatives  in  prison."  ^ 

The  resistance  of  the  peasants  was  nearly  as  universal 
as  the  usurpations.  Usually  they  carried  their  grievances 
before  the  courts,  very  often  with  ruinous  results  to 
themselves,  as  we  have  just  seen ;  sometimes  they 
despaired  of  justice  and  resorted  to  more  violent  ex- 
pedients. They  broke  down  the  enclosures  and  reaped 
fhe  crops  of  the  new  tenants  ;  in  one  case  we  hear  of  the 
engrosser's  farmhouse  being  burnt.'' 

It  is  clear,  then,  whether  or  not  we  employ  the  rather 

^  Sagnac  and  Caron,  pp.  578-80. 
»  S^e,  Classes  rurales,  pp.  231-3. 


52    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

vague  term  of  "  feudal  reaction,"  that  both  economic 
and  psychic  forces  were  at  work  in  the  latter  part  of  the 
eighteenth  century  to  produce  an  increasing  resentment 
against  the  whole  system  of  agrarian  feudalism.  The 
purpose  of  this  chapter  has  been  to  make  the  causes 
of  that  resentment  comprehensible  ;  those  that  follow 
will  be  concerned  with  its  consequences. 


CHAPTER    II 
THE  PEASANTS  AND  THEIR  PROGRAMME 

HITHERTO  we  have  spoken  of  "  the  peasants  "  in 
a  general  fashion,  but  the  point  has  now  been 
reached  when  more  precision  is  essential  to  our 
narrative.  We  must,  then,  describe  the  composition  of 
this  class,  and  its  economic  and  cultural  condition.  By 
that  time  we  shall  be  in  a  position  to  investigate  its 
attitude  towards  the  complex  of  institutions  described 
in  the  preceding  chapter. 

In  the  first  place,  we  must  realise  that  it  is  not  strictly 
accurate  to  write  of  the  peasants  as  of  an  entirely  homo- 
geneous class.  Within  this  section  of  the  French  popula- 
tion in  1789  were  included  several  distinct  social  groups 
which  differed  from  one  another  in  various  ways,  but  Tiad 
a  point  of  contact  inasmuch  as  they  were  all  more  or 
less  directly~"concemed  with  agriculture.  What  M. 
Georges  Bussiere  has  written  of  P6rigord  may  be  taken 
as  applying  with  general  accuracy  to  the  whole  of  rural 
France  at  this  period.  "  The  term  '  peasant,'  "  he 
remarks,  "  embraces  the  lesser  folk  who  live  in  contact 
with  the  soil.  Only  the  large  towns  and  cities  have  a 
section  of  inhabitants  which  takes  no  part  in  labour  on 
the  land.  The  village  blacksmith  and  shoemaker,  who 
also  cultivate  their  small  holdings,  are  peasants,  and  this 
class  o£  artisan-cultivators  or  cultivator-artisans,  is  very 
numerous.  The  manufacturer,  whether  he  be  miller, 
weaver,  or  innkeeper  ;  the  dealer  in  cattle  or  agricultural 
products,    whether   his    commerce    be    large    or   small, 


54    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

remains  more  or  less  a  son  of  the  soil.  The  small  pro- 
prietor, engaged  in  the  exploitation  of  his  own  domain, 
is  a  peasant,  is,  indeed,  the  typical  peasant.  The  metayer, 
who  farms  the  land  of  a  large  landowner  and  receives  a 
portion  of  the  crop  in  return,  is  also  a  peasant.  .  .  .  The 
labourer  and  the  farm  hand,  rare  enough  in  Perigord, 
are  peasants.  .  .  .  Generally  speaking,  the  peasant  is 
the  man  who  labours  on  the  soil."  ^ 

The  different  groups  were  to  be  found  in  all  parts  of 
rural  France,  though  the  numbers  and  relative  importance 
of  each  group  varied,  of  course,  from  region  to  region. 
Professor  Loutchisky  has  shown,  for  example,  that  the 
class  of  artisans  included  over  21  per  cent  of  the  popula- 
tion of  75  villages  near  Laon,  nearly  13  per  cent  in  146 
villages  about  Toulouse,  and  not  quite  16  per  cent  in 
112  villages  of  the  district  of  Chatillon.^  In  some  pro- 
vinces, as  is  still  the  case  to-day,  tenant-farmers  were 
more  numerous  than  small  proprietors  ;  in  others,  the 
holdings  were  large,  and  the  class  of  labourers  work- 
ing for  wages — the  journaliers — was  correspondingly 
numerous.  In  certain  areas,  again,  the  combination  of 
manufacture  with  agriculture,  noted  by  M.  I^ussiere 
(which  went  on  to  some  degree  everywhere,  as  is  shown 
by  the  figures  quoted  above),  was  practised  by  a  large 
proportion  of  the  rural  population.  In  the  Beaujolais, 
for  example,  a  considerable  textile  industry  was  carried 
on  by  the  peasants  of  the  mountainous  regions,  who 
could  not  have  maintained  themselves  without  this 
supplement  to  agriculture  ;  in  the  Orleanais,  especially 
in  impoverished  Sologne,  there  was  much  spinning  of 
wool ;  and  in  Brittany,  the  association  of  textile  manu- 
factures with  agriculture  was  perhaps  closer  than  in  any 
other    province.^    In    all    the    vine-growing    areas    the 

^  Bussi6re,  p.  238. 

*  Loutchisky,  Petite  PropriSt^,  pp.  48,  49,  and  51.  Cf.  also  his 
PropriHi  paysanne,  chap.  ii. 

*  Vermale,  p.  20 ;  Bloch,  vol.  i.  p.  43  ;  S&e,Classes  rurales,  p.  446  et  seq. 


THE  PEASANTS  AND  THEIR  PROGRAMME     55 

coopers  formed  an  important  section  of  the  village 
population,  while  in  forest  regions  the  woodmen  and 
charcoal-burners  were  numerous  also.  All  these  classes 
felt,  directly  or  indirectly,  the  pressure  of  the  tithes  and 
feudardues,  and  tended  to  form  a  compact  mass  for 
puTposes^of  defence  or  aggression  against  the  privileged 
classes. 

Having  discussed  the  composition  of  the  peasant 
class,  we  turn  now  to  its  economic  position.  What  pro- 
portion of  French  soil  was  in  its  hands  ?  To  this  question, 
as  to  so  many  others  that  have  been  raised  in  the  course 
of  our  inquiry,  no  very  precise  answer  can  be  given.  In 
the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  century,  De  Tocqueville 
and  Boiteau  opened  a  debate  on  this  problem  which  has 
not  yet  ended,  the  one  affirming  with  Necker  that  before 
1789  the  number  of  small  peasant  properties  was  im- 
mense, the  other  quoting  with  approval  Target's  statement 
that  "  nineteen-twentieths  of  the  population  possessed 
no  property."  ^  Much  of  the  subsequent  discussion  has 
been  vitiated  by  the  obvious  desire  of  some  writers  to 
glorify  the  work  of  the  Revolution,  and  of  others  to 
defend  the  old  regime;  much  of  it,  too,  has  clearly  turned 
upon  a  point  of  terminology.  Those  who,  hke  MM, 
Champion  and  Kovalewsky,  criticise  De  Tocqueville's 
view,  obviously  attach  a  special  and  legal  sense  to  the 
word  "  property  "  ;  they  think  of  it  as  involving  absolute 
and  unencumbered  possession.  But  this,  surely,  is  a 
very  restricted  conception.  An  estate  which  is  charged 
with  an  annuity  is  certainly  not  the  property  of  the 
annuitant.  When  we  read  of  the  peasant  bequeathing, 
selling,  exchanging  his  land,  it  is  difficult  to  deny  that 
he  had  a  property  in  it.^  In  their  cahicrs  and  other  con- 
temporary documents  the  peasants  frequently  speak  of 

*  Tocqueville,  p.  33  ;  Boiteau,  p.  49. 

*  Kar6iew,  note  to  p.  44,  quotes  an  eighteenth  century  jurist  as 
remarking  in  this  connexion  that  "  a  burdened  property  does  not  cease 
to  be  a  property." 


56    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

themselves  as  "  proprietors,"  while  the  tax-rolls  of  the 
period  clearly  distinguish  between  the  farmer,  holding 
his  land  by  lease,  and  the  peasant-proprietor.  Never- 
theless, it  is  important  to  remark,  with  M.  See,  that  the 
peasant's  right  of  property  was  5^^_ab^olute  and 
"  autonomous."  ^  As  w¥Tiave"^en  in  the  preceding 
chapter,  the  peasant's  freedom  of  action  in  regard  to 
his  land  was  often  seriously  restricted,  and  he  was 
obliged  to  share  its  produce  with  a  social  superior. 
Agrarian  feudalism,  as  it  existed  in  the  eighteenth 
century,  may  be  fairly  described  as  a  system  of  dual 
ownership  ;  neither  party  had  complete  and  sovereign 
rights  over  the  land.  Still,  it  must  be  insisted  that  the 
actual  cultivator  had  a  real  and  legal  right  of  property 
iirit7"and,n5earing  this  in  mind,  we  may  pass  to  the 
more  important  question  of  the  distribution  of  land 
between  the  different  social  classes  in  1789. 

With  one  class  of  proprietors  we  need  not  greatly 
concern  ourselves,  namely,  the  small  but  fortunate  class 
which  held  land  in  franc::alleu,  that  is,  unburdened  by 
an^yL  feudal  servitudes  or  obligations.  Such  proprietors 
existed  in  1789,  scattered  over  many  parts  of  'French 
territory,  but  it  seems  clear  that  they  were  comparatively 
few  in  number  ;  "  allodial  property,"  says  M.  Kareiew, 
"^~as  exceptional."  ^  This  was  the  case  even  in  districts 
where  the  local  law  presumed  the  absence  of  feudal  rights 
over  land.  Dauphine,  for  instance,  was  a  province 
where  the  "  written  law  "  held  sway,  and  where,  accord- 
ing to  legal  theory,  the  land  of  non-noble  persons  could 
not  be  subjected  to  any  feudal  bond.  "  In  fact,"  says 
M.  Conard,  "  the  number  of  peasants  who  were  full  pro- 
prietors of  their  lands,  that  is  to  say,  who  paid  no  other 
charges  than  the  tithe  and  the  royal  taxes,  was  small,"  and 
he  goes  on  to  point  out  that  in  the  whole  of  the  election 
of  Vienne  the  inhabitants  of  only  three  communities  out 
of  a  total  of  193,  profited  by  this  presumption  of  freedom 
*  S6e,  Classes  rurahs,  p.  77.  *  Kar6iew,  p.  33. 


THE  PEASANTS  AND  THEIR  PROGRAMME     57 

of  property.  In  all  the  rest,  the  peasants  were  wholly 
or  in  part  subjected  to  the  payment  of  feudal  dues.^ 
In  view  of  these  facts,  we  need  not  stay  to  debate 
the  difficult  and  obscure  question  of  the  number 
of  allodial  properties  that  existed  at  the  beginning 
of  the  Revolution,  but  can  pass  to  more  important 
matters. 

"  The  majority  of  the  peasants  are  proprietors," 
writes  M.  See,'  thus  supporting  the  view  of  De  Tocque- 
ville  mentioned  above,  and  most  of  the  detailed  studies  of 
this  question  which  have  been  conducted  in  recent  years 
point  to  the  same  conclusion.  The  late  M.  Gimel,  a 
pioneer  in  this  department  of  research,  asserted  that  the 
number  of  small  proprietors  in  1789  was  about  four 
millions  ;  Professor  Loutchisky  of  Kiev,  although  he 
indicates  various  defects  in  Gimel's  methods  of  calcula- 
tion, concludes  that  the  latter's  estimate  was  too  low 
rather  than  too  high,  and  that  the  peasants  were  by  far 
the  inost  numerous  class  in  a  total  of  five  million  pro- 
prietor ofjand.^  These  are  but  estimates,  it  is  true, 
and  only  a  most  laborious  series  of  researches  in  the 
local  archives  of  France  could  finally  settle  this  con- 
troversy. But  such  evidence  as  is  available  appears  to 
support  the  general  correctness  of  the  view  of  De  Tocque- 
ville  and  his  successors.  M.  Marcel  Marion,  for  example, 
concludes  that  the  number  of  small  proprietors  in  the 
generaUty  of  Bordeaux  was  very  great,  and  speaks  of 
"  the  general  diffusion  of  landed  property  among  the 
humbler  classes  of  the  community."  *  The  extracts 
from  contemporary  official  documents  given  by  M. 
Bridrey  in  his  edition  of  the  Cahiers  de  doleances  for  the 
district  of  the  Cotentin  show  that  in  eighty  parishes  of 
that  region  there  were  10,320  non-noble  proprietors,  and 
the  average  amount  of  tax  paid  by  each  proves  that  they 

*  Conard,  pp.  9-10.  •  S6e,  Class$s  mrales,  j>.  66. 

*  Loutchisky,  Petite  proprtM,  p.  79. 

*  Marion,  Bordeaux. 


58    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

were  small  proprietors. ^  Without  pinning  our  faith, 
then,  to  a  particular  figure,  we  may  accept  the  opinion 
originally  expressed  by  Necker,  namely,  that  the  number 
of  peasant  owners  before  the  Revolution  was,  relatively 
speaking,  "  immense."  But  the  case  of  the  Cotentin 
parishes  raises  a  question  of  a  different  order.  Alongside 
the  10,320  small  proprietors  we  find  1290  tenant-farmers, 
and  the  amount  of  tax  paid  by  this  second  class  shows 
that,  on  an  average,  each  individual  member  of  it  held 
nearly  three  times  as  much  land  as  the  members  of  the 
first.  It  is  important,  then,  that  we  should  bring 
together  such  information  as  exists  to  show  the  dis- 
tribution of  landed  property  between  the  different  social 
groups. 

From  the  statistics  as  to  ownership  compiled  by 
Professor  Loutchisky  we  can  construct  the  following 
table  :  2 

Percentage  of  Land  held  by 


Province  or  District. 

Nobles. 

Clergy. 

Peasants. 

Artois 

29*0 

22-0 

33'0 

Picardy      .         .         .         . 

33'4 

14-6 

367 

Burgundy  .         .         .         . 

35-1 

11-6 

^33-i 

Limousin   .         .         .         . 

15-3 

2*4 

59-2 

Haute-Auvergne 

I  I'D 

2'I 

50-0 

Quercy 

.      15-5 

2-0 

54-0 

Dauphine  . 

I2'0 

2'0 

40-8 

Les  Landes 

22'3 

17 

52-0 

Beam 

.     20 'O 

1*1 

60 -o 

Toulousain 

.      287 

4-0 

35'o 

These  figures  relate,  for  the  most  part,  as  will  be  seen, 
to  the  South  and  the  Centre,  parts  of  the  country  where 
Arthur  Young  noted  the  predominance  of  peasant  pro- 
prietors ;  ^  they  tell  us  little  of  the  North  and  nothing 
of  the  West.     Now,  these  are  the  areas  where  there  is 


^  I  have  based  this  calculation  on  the  date  given  in  M.  Bridrey's 
second  volume. 

*  Loutchisky,  Classes  agricoles,  pp.  42-3. 

^  See  under  dates  12  June  and  12  August  1787  for  Quercy  and  B6arn. 


THE  PEASANTS  AND  THEIR  PROGRAMME     59 

reason  to  suppose  that  the  amount  of  land  owned  by 
the  peasants  was  smallest  ;  Loutchisky  beheves  that  in 
Normandy,  Poitou,  and  Brittany  it  amounted  to  no 
more  than  20  per  cent.  The  figures  given  above  for 
the  Cotentin  support  this  opinion  as  regards  Normandy/ 
while  the  researches  of  M.  See  confirm  it  for  Brittany. 
"  The  declarations  of  the  twentieths  and  the  seigneurial 
documents  seem  to  prove,"  he  remarks,  "  that  in  Brittany, 
as  in  the  rest  of  France,  the  majority  of  the  peasants  are 
proprietors.  In  the  thirty-eight  parishes  which  I  have 
studied,  we  find  7686  peasant-owners  as  compared  with 
233  noble  and  633  bourgeois  proprietors ;  that  is  to  say, 
that  of  a  hundred  landowners  there  would  be  three  nobles, 
eight  bourgeois,  and  eighty-nine  peasants."  '  But  he 
goes  on  to  point  out  that  the  holdings  of  the  peasants 
were  generally  small ;  "in  the  case  of  about  half  the 
peasant-proprietors  (46  per  cent)  the  portion  owned  by 
each  is  reduced  to  one  or  two  hectares  [the  hectare  = 
2*47  acres]  of  land,  and  there  are  some  whose  property 
consists  of  a  small  house,  with  a  garden,  a  parcel  of 
cultivable  land,  or  a  piece  of  heath  attached.  .  .  .  One 
may  affirm  that  in  Upper  Brittany  the  peasant's  property 
is  of  quite  restricted  dimensions,  much  more  so,  it  would 
seem,  than  in  most  other  regions  of  France."  In  Lower 
Brittany,  conditions  were  still  worse ;  most  of  the 
cultivators  held  their  land  by  a  pecuharly  objectionable 
form  of  leasehold  known  as  domaine  congeable.  The 
number  of  owners,  and  the  amount  held  by  each,  were 
notably  smaller  than  in  the  upper  part  of  the  province.^ 
The  reasons,  whether  historical  or  geographical,  for 
these  marked  differences  in  the  distribution  of  ownership 
cannot  detain  us  here  ;  we  must  pass  on  to  consider 
other  points  of  more  immediate  importance.     For  in- 

^  Loutchisky  further  states  that  80  per  cent  of  the  agricultural  class 
in  Lower  Normandy  and  Perche  owned  no  land.  See  Classes  agricoles, 
p.  18. 

*  S6e,  Classes  rurales,  p.  66.  •  Ibid,  p.  68. 


60    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

stance,  was  the  grip  of  the  peasant  on  the  land  strengthen- 
ing or  weakening  at  the  "beginning  of  the  Revolution  ? 
Even  if  we  take  into  full  account  what  has  been  said  as 
to  the  "  feudal  reaction  "  in  the  previous  chapter,  the 
evidence  is  of  a  character  to  permit  us  to  believe  that  the 
former  process  was  taking  place.  For  the  province  of 
Artois,  Professor  Loutchisky  has  established  that  in  the 
two  centuries  between  1569  and  1769,  the  peasants  in 
the  neighbourhood  of  Arras  had  increased  their  holdings 
by  30  per  cent,  and  by  34  per  cent  in  that  of  Saint-Omer. 
In  the  generality  of  Soissons,  they  had  acquired  four 
times  as  much  land  as  they  had  sold  in  the  years  between 
1750  and  1785.  The  same  phenomenon  can  be  observed 
in  the  Centre  and  the  South,  In  the  Limousin,  between 
the  years  1779  and  1791,  the  peasants  sold  700  arpents 
of  land,  but  they  also  bought  4700.  Around  Toulouse, 
in  the  same  period,  both  the  nobles  and  the  bourgeoisie 
sold  more  land  than  they  bought  ;  clearly  it  must  have 
been  the  peasants  who  acquired  the  difference.  In 
Touraine,  between  1765  and  1789,  the  number  of  pro- 
prietors increased  by  475  ;  in  thirteen  parishes  of  Berry, 
between  1761  and  1776,  the  increase  was  162  ; '  and  in 
twenty-four  parishes  of  Auvergne  it  amounted  to  237 
from  1750  to  1780.1  By  incredible  economies,  made  at 
a  cost  in  human  suffering  of  which  it  is  not  good  to  think, 
the  peasants  had  gradually,  and  piecemeal,  increased 
their  holdings.  The  growth  in  brilliance  and  luxury  of 
the  royal  court,  though  it  injured  the  peasants  by  in- 
creasing taxation,  helped  them  indirectly  by  impoverish- 
irng^he  noblesse.  The  Abbe  Bernier,  in  his  interesting 
study  of  the  Norman  peasants,  recounts  a  family 
history  which  shows  us  an  example  of  this  slow  and 
painful  upward  chmb  in  the  economic  scale.  In  1688, 
one  Pierre  B.  leased  y^  arpents  of  land  ;  in  1766,  his 
descendant,  Guillaume  B.,  made  the  first  purchase  of 

*  Loutchisky,  Classes  agricoles,  pp.  ig-23  ;    cf.  also  Propriiti  pay- 


THE  PEASANTS  AND  THEIR  PROGRAMME     61 

land  in  his  family's  record,  the  vendor,  it  is  interesting 
to  note,  being  a  noble  who  was  imprisoned  for  debt  in 
Paris.  In  1789,  when  the  States-General  met,  Guillaume's 
son  was  a  man  of  substance,  and  the  proud  possessor  of 
247  arpents.  In  just  over  a  century  the  evolution  had 
been  completed.  The  B.'s  must  have  been  a  family 
exceptionally  favoured  by  fortune,  but  what  they 
achieved  on  a  comparatively  large  scale,  thousands  of 
others  unquestionably  did  on  a  small  one.^ 

This  process,  by  which  the  lands  of  the  noble  class 
were  gradually  being  transferred  to  the  rural  Third 
Estate,  had  been  going  on  for  centuries  (M.  Hanotaux 
describes  it  as  already  far  advanced  at  the  beginning  of 
the  seventeenth),*  and  would  unquestionably  have 
developed  both  in  rapidity  and  extent  had  it  not  been 
for  the  barriers  erected  against  its  progress  by  feudahsm 
and  the  fiscal  system  of  the  state.  The  retraites  and  the 
lods  et  vgntes  restricted  purchases  by  rendering  possession 
uncertain  and  forcing  up  the  price  of  land  ;  the  govern- 
ment, perpetually  in  need  of  revenues,  levied  registration 
taxes  upon  legal  deeds  which  inevitably  produced  the 
same  effects.  So  far  did  this  suicidal  pohcy  go  that  in 
1771  the  use  of  parchment  for  deeds  of  sale  was  made 
compulsory  by  royal  edict,  however  small  might  be  the 
sum  involved  !  ^  But  even  this  piece  of  extravagance 
did  not  end  the  matter.  The  plebeian  holder  of  "  noble  " 
land  was  subjected  to  a  special  tax  known  as  franc-fief, 
which  was  levied  every  twenty  years  and  at  each  change 
of  ownership.  It  amounted,  in  general,  to  a  year's 
revenue,  but  in  Picardy  (into  which  province  this  tax 
had  been  introduced  as  lately  as  1751)  a  supplementary 
charge  of  50  per  cent  was  added.*  Franc-fief  MndowhicdXy 
had  its  origin  in  the  desire  of  the  Crown  to  retain  the  soil 

^  Bemier,  p.  303. 

•  Hanotaux.  as  previously  cited,  pp.  408-©, 
»  S6e,  Classes  mrales,  p.  337. 

♦  Jbid.  p.  340  ;  Kcvalewsky,  vol.  i.  p.  94. 


62    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

in  the  hands  of  the  class  from  which  mihtary  service  was 
due,  that  is,  of  the  nobihty.i  When  the  rise  of  pro- 
fessional armies  had  deprived  the  tax  of  its  reason  of 
being,  it  was  retained  to  meet  the  demands  of  that  true 
daughter  of  the  horse-leech — the  royal  treasury.  Its 
effects  in  artificially  restricting  the  sale  of  land  are 
obvious,  and  were  clearly  recognised  at  the  time.  The 
nobles  of  Amiens  pointed  out  in  1789  that  it  was  "  pre- 
judicial to  the  lower  orders  whom  it  burdened  with  an 
unjust  tax  .  .  .  and  to  the  nobles,  whose  property 
indirectly  bore  the  weight  of  it,  since  the  value  of  their 
land  was  diminished  by  the  restrictions  placed  upon  sales 
and  circulation. "2  "  The  franc-fief,"  said  the  Third 
Estate  of  Aix-en-Issart,  "  prevents  the  free  circulation 
of  landed  properties  held  by  non-noble  persons,"  ^ 

Nevertheless,  the  passage  of  "  noble "  land  into 
non-noble  hands  went  on,  as  we  have  seen.  Many  of 
the  great  seigneurs  owned  little  or  no  land  in  1789  ;  their 
true  property  was  their  right  to  levy  feudal  dues.  M. 
Loutchisky  cites  the  case  of  the  Due  de  Noailles  who, 
though  he  drew  large  revenues  from  his  rights  over 
lands  in  the  Limousin,  himself  owned  only  spme  600 
arpents,  scattered  over  several  parishes.  The  revenue 
derived  from  these  was  not  one-tenth  of  his  total  income, 
"  And  this,"  continues  Loutchisky,  "was  not  a  state  of 
things  peculiar  to  the  great  lordships  ;  it  was  absolutely 
the  same  in  the  small.  In  the  tax-roll  of  the  parish 
of  Estenos  (in  the  district  of  Toulouse),  we  read  that  the 
seigneur  depended  on  the  Marquis  de  Roquepine  '  who 
possessed  nothing  but  a  fief.'  In  the  roll  of  the  parish 
of  Goudex  we  read  also  '  that  the  seigneur  of  the  place 
had  only  a  lordship,  feudal  rights  and  a  mill.'  In  the 
Limousin  there  was  scarcely  a  parish  where  seigneurs 
could  not  be  found  entirely  without  land  and  possessing 
nothing   but   their   rents.     There   were   entire   parishes 

^  Kovalewsky,  vol.  i.  p.  15.  '  Ibid.  vol.  i.  p.  16. 

•  Loriquet,  vol.  ii.  p.  149. 


THE  PEASANTS  AND  THEIR  PROGRAMME     68 

where  the  noble  proprietors  lived  on  their  rents  'v\ithout 
owning  a  scrap  of  land.  Such  was  the  case  in  the  parish 
of  Saint-Cirgues-de-Jordanc,  in  Auvergne.  It  is  said 
in  the  roll  of  the  parish  of  Saint- Just,  also  in  Auvergne, 
that  its  seigneur  '  possessed  neither  a  chateau  nor  the 
least  portion  of  land,  that  he  had  not  even  a  residence, 
and  lived  only  on  his  feudal  dues.'  We  discover  the 
same  state  of  affairs  in  Dauphine.  In  the  parish  of 
Croses,  the  lord  subsisted  merely  on  the  product  of  his 
rents  ;  at  Beauregard,  the  seigneur  lived  on  his  feudal 
dues  and  the  revenue  from  a  mill.  The  same  observation 
applies  to  Champagne  ;  in  the  parish  of  Celles,  for  ex- 
ample, the  lord  levied  his  rents  and  dues  and  owned  no 
other  property."  ^ 

But  all  these  facts  as  to  the  distribution  and  extension 
of  peasant  properties,  imposing  as  they  are,  must  not 
blind  us  to  the  sufferings  of  the  class  which  held  and 
tilled  them.  They  were  terribly  real.  There  is  a  tragic 
monotony  about  the  complaints  of  the  village  com- 
munities in  1789  which  carries  conviction  to  an  attentive 
reader.  "  There  is  no  being  more  wretched  than  the 
peasant,"  says  one  such  document.  "  He  is  obliged  to 
live  upon  a  little  bread  made  of  millet  or  black  com,  and 
even  that  is  often  lacking.  Then  he  has  nothing  but  a 
soup  made  of  salt  and  water,  which  the  dogs  of  the  rich 
would  certainly  reject."  ^  Harassed  by  the  tax-gatherer, 
the  tithe-farmer,  and  the  agents  of  the  seigneur  ;  his  crops 
ravaged  by  pigeons  or  ruined  by  the  hunt,  the  peasant 
was  often  left  in  such  a  condition  of  poverty  that  a  bad 
season  or  a  deficient  harvest  brought  him  face  to  face 
with  death  by  starvation.  The  cahier  of  Oger  thus 
describes  the  situation  of  the  vine-growers  of  Champagne. 
"  Although  he  (the  peasant)  is  a  proprietor,  on  account 
of  the  debts  almost  always  contracted  and  caused  by  the 
mishaps  connected  with  the  cultivation  of  vines,  he  really 
has  nothing  of  his  own,  and  belongs  to  the  class  of  serfs 

*  Loutchisky,  Classes  agricoles,  pp.  45^.  *  Fourastie,  p.  20. 


64     THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

of  the  glebe.  A  good  harvest  pays  for  his  labour,  the 
rent  with  which  he  is  charged,  and  nothing  more  ;  a  bad 
one  deprives  him  of  everything."  ^  The  inhabitants  of 
Espere  (Quercy),  after  a  careful  calculation  of  their  total 
income  and  the  charges  upon  it,  continue  in  this  fashion, 
"  Such,  Sire,  is  the  deplorable  situation  of  the  people  of 
this  village,  and  yet  candour  does  not  allow  us  to  deny 
that  many  parishes  in  the  province  of  Quercy  are  even 
more  wretched  than  ourselves.  We  have  not  yet  seen 
our  children  browse  upon  grass  like  those  of  our  neigh- 
bours, and  our  old  people,  happier  than  many  of  those  in 
the  district,  have  almost  all  survived  the  rigours  of  last 
January  ;  there  is  only  one  whom  we  have  had  the  un- 
happiness  to  see  die  from  want  of  food."  '  Throughout 
the  country  the  land  was  under-cultivated,  as  the  pages  of 
Arthur  Young  sufficiently  prove,  a  state  of  affairs  directly 
due  to  the^^ejLsant's  lack  of  capital,^  and  he  lacked  capital 
because  the  drain  upon  his  produce  of  taxes,  tithes,  and 
dues  made  accumulation  a  task  of  almost  insurmountable 
difficulty.  Thus  he  was  caught  in  a  vicious  circle  : 
poverty  produced  under-cultivation  and  under-cultivation 
produced  poverty,  "  The  unhappy  tenants,"  ^aid  the 
Third  Estate  of  Forcalquier,  "  do  not  consider  their  land 
as  a  means  of  maintaining  themselves  and  their  families 
so  much  as  the  cause  of,  and  pretext  for,  their  enslavement 
to  the  taxes  and  vexations  of  every  description.  Thence 
arises  the  discouragement  of  the  worker,  the  abandon- 
ment of  his  land,  and  the  numerous  emigrations  which 
depopulate  the  countryside  and  overflow  the  large 
towns."  * 

If  it  be  urged  that  the  peasants  were  interested  in 

>  Laurent,  p.  490. 

'  Fourasti6,  p.  iii.  There  Is  abundant  evidence  that  the  winter 
of  1788-9  was  particularly  disastrous  for  the  peasants.  This  fact 
must  be  borne  in  mind  when  considering  the  •vents  of  the  following 
summer. 

»  Cf .  Loutchisky,  Classts  agrieoUs,  p.  63. 

*  Koval«w8ky,  vol.  i.  p.  392. 


THE  PEASANTS  AND  THEIR  PROGRAMME     65 

blackening  the  picture  of  their  condition,  we  need  only 
turn  to  the  pages  of  Arthur  Young  to  find  their  de- 
scription entirely  confirmed  by  that  level-headed  and 
competent  observer.  "  Women  picking  weeds  into  their 
aprons  for  their  cows,"  he  wrote  on  lo  June  1787, 
"  another  sign  of  poverty  I  observed  during  the  whole 
way  from  Calais"  (he  was  then  in  Quercy).  Under  the 
same  date  we  find  another  note,  equally  impressive. 
"  All  the  country,  girls  and  women,  are  without  shoes 
or  stockings  ;  and  the  ploughmen  at  their  work  have 
neither  sabots  nor  feet  to  their  stockings.  This  is  a 
poverty  that  strikes  at  the  root  of  national  prosperity ; 
a  large  consumption  among  the  poor  being  of  more  con- 
sequence than  among  the  rich.  ...  It  reminded  me  of 
the  misery  of  Ireland."  When  we  remember  what  the 
condition  of  the  Irish  peasantry  was  in  Young's  day, 
this  last  curt  remark  acquires  a  terrible  significance. 
His  account  of  conditions  in  Brittany  is  to  the  same 
effect.  "  To  Montauban.  The  poor  people  seetn  poor 
indeed  ;  the  children  terribly  ragged,  if  possible  worse 
clad  than  if  with  no  clothes  at  all ;  as  to  shoes  and 
stockings  they  are  luxuries.  A  beautiful  girl  of  six  or 
seven  years  playing  with  a  stick  and  smiling  under  such  a 
bundle  of  rags  as  made  my  heart  ache  to  see  her.  .  .  . 
One-third  of  what  I  have  seen  of  this  province  seems 
uncultivated,  and  nearly  all  of  it  in  misery."  ^  Con- 
siderations of  space  forbid  the  further  accumulation  of 
testimony  on  this  point,  but  it  may  be  asserted  that  all 
modern  research  has  tended  to  confirm  the  general 
accuracy  of  the  pictures  drawn  by  the  peasants  and  by 
Young. 

If  from  economic  we  turn  to  cultural  conditions,  we 
find  the  state  of  affairs  equally  unsatisfactory.  The 
majority__of  the  peasants  were  illiterate,  and  their  own 
statements  frequently  refer  to  the  fact.  "  An  inhabitant 
of  the  countryside,"  says  the  cahier  of  Vasselay  (Berry), 

^  5  September  1 788. 

5 


66    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

"  is  almost  always  unable  to  read  or  write  "  ;  "  the 
peasants,  for  the  most  part,  can  neither  read  nor  write," 
says  that  of  Saint- Jean-de-Bere  (Brittany). ^  It  can  be 
shown  from  the  signatures  to  these  documents  that  there 
was  little  exaggeration  in  such  statements. ^  At  Sarcelles, 
out  of  i6i  persons  who  took  part  in  drawing  up  the  cahier, 
only  56  knew  how  to  sign  it  ;  at  Chevannes,  10  signed, 
37  put  a  cross  or  mark  ;  at  Artigues,  34  signed  out  of  120  ; 
and  at  Launac,  out  of  83  persons  present  only  22  were 
able  to  write  their  names.  Out  of  939  persons  who  at- 
tended the  electoral  assemblies  of  19  parishes  in  the 
hailliage  of  Bourges,  only  225  were  able  to  affix  their 
signatures  to  the  records  of  the  proceedings.^  In  1795, 
42  inhabitants  of  Saint-Leger-de-Fougeres  (Nievre)  ad- 
dressed a  petition  to  the  Convention  ;  only  9  signatures 
were  affixed,  and  the  document  concludes  with  the 
common  formula,  "  The  other  petitioners  do  not  know 
how  to  sign."  When  we  learn  that  the  petition  was  a 
protest  against  the  establishment  of  primary  schools 
as  useless  and  expensive,  the  facts  acquire  a  certain 
humour.^  As  for  the  signatures  to  the  cahiers  of  1789, 
they  "  attest,"  says  M.  Champion,  "  the  insufficiency 
of  primary  instruction  ;  many  are  so  roughly  formed 
that  it  is  obvious  that  those  who  traced  them  did  not 
know  how  to  write."  ^ 

Poor,  ignorant,  oppressed,  it  would  seem  impossible 
that  the  peasants  should  have  been  capable  of  resistance 
to  the  social  and  political  forces  that  crushed  them  to 
the  earth,  much  less  of  formulating  a  programme  for  the 
betterment  of  their  lot.     Yet  they  were,  after  all,  of 

^  Gandilhon,  p.  479  ;   See  and  Lesort,  vol.  ii.  p.  335. 
^  Champion,  p.  209  note. 

3  These  figures  are  calculated  from  the  documents  printed  by  M. 
Gandilhon. 

*  Rambaud  (A.),  Histoire  de  la  civilisation  contemporaine  en  France, 
p.  170. 

*  Champion,  p.  210;   for  similar  coq<:lusions  as  to  iBpttany,  See, 
Classes  rurales,  pp,  494-6, 


THE  PEASANTS  AND  THEIR  PROGRAMME     67 

the  same  class  from  which  sprung  the  Bagaudae  of  Gallo- 
Roman  times,  the  Jacques,  Palliers,  and  White  Hoods  of 
the  Middle  Ages  ;  the  Va-nu-pieds,  Gauthiers,  and  Tards- 
Avises  of  the  sixteenth  century ;  the  Croquants  and 
Bonnets  Rouges  who  shook  the  social  order  in  Perigord 
and  Brittany  at  the  end  of  the  seventeenth  ;  the  blood 
of  these  fierce  ancestors  ran  in  their  veins,  and  if  the  time 
seemed  (but  only  seemed)  to  have  gone  by  for  open  insur- 
rection, they  could  and  did  resist  oppression  by  due  pro- 
cess of  law.  "  On  the  eve  of  '89,  the  sovereign  Council 
[of  Alsace]  is  constandy  occupied  in  settling  disputes 
between  seigneurs  and  vassals  "  ;  at  the  other  extremity 
oFthe  realm  in  Angoumois,  nearly  forty  parishes  were 
at  law  with  the  Marquis  of  Ruffec  over  the  feudal 
corvees}  It  would  be  easy  to  fill  pages  of  this  book  with 
the  peasants'  accounts  of  the  suits  they  had  waged  with 
seigneurs  or  tithe-owners,  sometimes  on  account  of  an 
enclosure,  sometimes  because  of  an  illegall}^  levied  due  ; 
and  if  the  courts  of  that  age  were  generally  hostile,  the 
stubbornness  bom  of  the  secular  struggle  with  unfriendly 
Nature  still  insisted  on  a  fresh  effort.  The  peasants, 
then,  in  spite  of  all,  possessed  the  will  to  resist  oppression  ; 
they  were  capable,  too,  of  aspirations  towards  better 
things  and  of  formulating  a  programme  for  the  abolition 
of  the  burdens  that  weighed  upon  them.  It  must  be  our 
next  task  to  discover  what  was  the  nature  of  that 
programme. 

We  are  fortunate  in  possessing  a  source  of  informa- 
tion, quite  unique  in  its  character,  which  is  of  the  utmost 
importance  for  this  inquiry,  namely,  the  famous  cahiers 
de  doleances  (statements  of  grie-vances)  drawn  up  by  the 
iiilrabitants' of  the  rural  communities  in  1789.  These 
documents  have  already  been  quoted  extensively  in  this 
and  the  preceding  chapter,  but  a  few  words  of  explanation 
as  to  their  character  and  importance  may  be  of  value 
here. 

1  Vidal  de  la  Blache,  p.  70  ;  Boissonade,  p.  450, 


68    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

The  States-General  which  assembled  at  Versailles  in 
May  1789  were  elected  by  a  complicated  system,  the  full 
details  of  which  it  is  not  necessary  to  describe.  The 
electoral  units  were  the  administrative  divisions  known 
as  the  hailliages  and  senechaussees,  and  in  these  the 
deputies  of  the  Third  Estate — the  non-noble  and  non- 
ecclesiastical  portion  of  the  population — were  chosen  by 
a  system  of  indirect  election.  Each  town  and  rural 
parish  elected  delegates  in  proportion  to  its  population 
(the  number  for  the  villages  was  two  for  two  hundred 
householders),  and  these  delegates  met  in  a  general 
assembly  where  were  elected  the  deputies  of  the  order 
who  were  to  sit  in  the  States-General.  The  qualifications 
demanded  of  the  electors  in  the  primary  assembhes  were 
that  they  should  be  of  French  nationality,  domiciled  in 
the  district,  twenty-five  years  of  age,  and  have  their 
names  inscribed  on  the  roll  of  tax-payers.  Under  the 
peculiar  fiscal  conditions  of  the  time  this  amounted  to 
little  less  than  manhood  suffrage.  In  some  parishes, 
women  took  part  in  the  assemblies  ;  but  this  was  due 
rather  to  a  misunderstanding  of  the  very  complicated 
electoral  regulations  than  to  any  theories  of  sex-equality. 
These  feminine  electors  seem  generally  to  have  been 
widows,  and  as  such  would,  of  course,  have  paid  taxes 
in  their  own  names. ^ 

In  addition  to  the  election  of  delegates,  the  primary 
assemblies  were  charged  with  another  important  duty, 
that  of  drawing  up  a  statement  of  grievances  and  proposals 
for  reform.  These  were  intended  to  guide  the  delegates 
in~ their  task  of  compiling  a  general  cahier  for  the  whole 
hailliage,  which  would,  in  turn,  serve  as  a  programme  and 
instructions  for  the  deputies  who  would  sit  and  vote  at 
Versailles.  Thousands  of  these  cahiers  have  now  been 
printed  and  made  available  for  study  ;  they  form  our 
most  precious  source  of  information  as  to  the  material 

1  At  Berry-Marmagne,  six  women,  all  widows,  took  part  in  the 
electoral  assembly.     See  Gandilhon,  p.  xiv  of  Introduction. 


THE  PEASANTS  AND  THEIR  PROGRAMIVIE    69 

condition  and  social  aspirations  of  the  French  people 
on  the  eve  of  the  Revolution. 

These  documents  naturally  vary  greatly  in  interest 
and  character.  Sometimes  they  cohfam  only  a  few 
brief  clauses  ;  sometimes  they  are  fair-sized  pamphlets 
which  discuss  every  aspect  of  poUtical  and  economic 
hfe  ;  sometimes  the  authors  expressly  state  that  they 
are  unequal  to  the  task  of  suggesting  reforms,  and  are 
content  to  leave  that  to  other  and  more  enUghtened 
persons.  They  give  only  a  description  of  their  melan- 
choly condition,  often  expressed  in  really  moving  terms, 
and  occasionally  illustrated  by  a  sort  of  balance-sheet 
of  the  parish  as  a  whole.  These  last,  artless  as  they 
usually  are,  are  by  no  means  the  least  useful  from  the 
student's  point  of  \dew.  Much  has  been  said  as  to 
the  monotonous  character  of  the  cahiers,  and  certainly 
the  first  reading  of  them  does  produce  such  an  impression. 
The  oppressions  under  which  the  French  people  suffered, 
the  crushing  taxes,  the  cruel  administrative  system, 
had  much  the  same  consequences  in  all  parts  of  the 
country  and  inevitably  produced  a  similarity  in  com- 
plaint. But  the  careful  observer  will  soon  perceive  how 
the  cahiers  of  areas  differ,  and  how  each  bailliage  takes 
on  an  Individual  character  due  jto.  varying  economic  and 
social  conditions. 

One  last  question  remains  before  we  turn  to  an 
examination  of  the  documents  themselves,  but  that  is 
of  such  importance  that  some  cUscussion  of  it,  however 
inadequate,  is  essential.  Did  the  cahiers  really  represent 
the  opinions  of  the  peasants  themselves  ?  Were  the 
views  expresseHln  them  the  echoes  of  other  men's  opinions, 
or  were  they  genuine  products  of  the  experience  of  those 
who  tilled  the  soil  ? 

A  good  deal  of  misunderstanding  of  this  matter  has 
been  caused  by  the  study  of  only  one  portion  of  these 
sources,  and  that,  in  some  respects,  the  least  valuable. 
Too  little  attention  has  been  paid  to  the  statements  of 


70    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

the  villages,  and  too  much  to  the  final  cahiers  of  the 
hailliages.  The  latter  were  drawn  up  in  towns  and  in 
assemblies  where  the  education  and  experience  of  affairs 
of  the  urban  representatives  gave  them  an  influence  out 
of  proportion  to  their  numbers.  There  is  ground  for 
hesitation  in  accepting  documents  drawn  up  under  such 
conditions  as  genuinely  representative  of  the  peasants' 
point  of  view.  But  even  when  we  turn  to  the  first  class 
of  documents,  there  seems  room  for  doubt.  We  have 
noted  the  educational  level  reached  by  the  peasants,  and 
it  is  impossible  to  believe  that  they  could  have  been  the 
authors  of  many  of  the  statements  incorporated  in  these 
presentations  of  their  grievances.  The  inhabitants  of 
Balaze,  for  example,  are  made  to  speak  of  "  the  maxim 
of  natural  law,  qui  commodon  et  incommodon  sentire 
debet  "  ;  those  of  Marcille-Robert  demand  the  abolition 
of  the  Concordat  agreed  upon  by  Francis  I  and  Leo  X, 
and  the  re-estabhshment  of  the  Pragmatic  of  Saint  Louis 
and  Charles  VII ;  ^  this  Breton  request  is  echoed  by  the 
Norman  inhabitants  of  Bricqueville-la-Blouette,  who 
also  quote  no  less  than  eleven  different  laws,  edicts, 
and  ordinances  !  La  Lande  d'Airon  quotes  (erroneously) 
Necker's  Treatise  on  the  Administration  of  the  Finances  ;  ^ 
Senne9ay  "  reminds  our  country  of  the  marks  of  dis- 
tinction conferred  on  the  cultivator  in  far-off  lands," 
such  as  China,  where  the  emperor,  "  informed  every 
year  of  the  labourer  who  has  most  distinguished  himself 
in  his  profession,  makes  him  a  mandarin  of  the  eighth 
order,"  and  goes  on  to  remark  that  in  ancient  Persia, 
"  on  the  eighth  day  of  the  month  named  Chorremcuz, 
the  kings  left  their  royal  state  to  eat  with  the  peasants 
(Montesquieu,  tome  iii.  p.  45)."  ^  All  this  suggests  a 
^?S^^??_5j^„_I^^L  ^^^  literary  knowledge  that  not  one 
French  peasant  in  ten  thousand  can  have  possessed  in 
1789. 

^  S6e  and  Lesort,  vol.  i.  pp.  161  and  203. 

*  Bridrey,  vol.  i.  pp.  214  and  391.  ■  Gandilhon,  p.  352. 


THE  PEASANTS  AND  THEIR  PROGRAMME     71 

It  is  clear,  then,  that  the  phraseology  of  the  cahiers 
is  often  not  that  of  the  peasants  themselves.  Moreover, 
they  are  frequently  copied  from  "  models."  These  are 
sometimes  the  cahier  of  a  neighbouring  parish,  sometimes 
printed  specimens  circulated  throughout  the  district 
during  the  electoral  period  by  interested  persons.  Well- 
known  examples  of  this  second  class  are  L' Instruction 
donnee  par  Mgr.  le  due  d'Orleans  d  ses  representants  anx 
hailliages,  partly  written  by  the  Abbe  Sieyes  ;  the  Suite 
de  I' avis  des  Bons  Norniands,  by  Thouret,  who  played  a 
notable  part  in  the  National  Assembly  ;  and  the  anony- 
mous Charges  d'un  hon  ciioyen  de  campagne,  which 
exercised  a  considerable  influence  in  Brittany.^  Some 
parishes  contented  themselves  with  reproducing  it  in 
their  cahiers. 

Now  these  facts,  taken  together,  do  suggest,  at  first 
sight,  that  we  cannot  rely  upon  the  cahiers  for  an  expres- 
sion of  the  real  views  of  the  peasants.  But  this  criticism 
permits  of  several  answers.  To  begin  with,  those  who 
have  most  carefully  studied  the  documents  in  question 
are  most  convinced  of  their  representative  character. 
M.  Edme  Champion,  a  pioneer  in  this  Hne  of  research, 
exclaims  that  in  the  cahiers  "  we  hear  the  voices  of  our 
ancestors  "  !  "  M.  Bridrey,  who  has  devoted  immense 
pains  to  the  editing  of  the  statements  drawn  up  by  the 
towns  and  parishes  of  the  Cotentin,  bears  witness  to 
their  remarkable  accuracy  as  to  matters  of  fact.  "  The 
cahiers  may,  with  the  fullest  confidence,  be  compared 
with  the  most  official  and  most  detailed  sources  ;  on 
the  facts  that  they  alleged  the  cahiers  spoke  the  truth. 
As  to  the  figures  they  produced,  whether  they  concerned 
royal  taxes,  feudal  dues,  or  tithes,  all  the  surest  docu- 
ments .  .  .  show  us  that  they  were  exact,  often  to  a 
livre,  or  a  bushel  of  oats.  .  .  .  The  picture  as  a  whole 
is  true,  frank,  and  loyal.  .  .  .  Nothing,  periiaps,  can  give 

»  Bloch,  vol.  i.  p.  xi  ;  S6e  and  Lesort,  vol.  i.  pp.  Ixxvii  and  Ixxxiii. 
■  Champion,  p.  24. 


72    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

a  more  just  idea  of  the  economic  condition  of  our  rural 
parishes  in  March  and  April  1789  ;  nothing  can  make  us 
realise  in  a  more  striking  fashion  the  formidable  power 
still  retained  by  the  privileged  classes  than  the  singular 
and,  in  the  end,  overwhelming  impression  which  arises 
from  the  reading,  parish  by  parish,  of  the  long  and 
monotonous  litany  of  their  dues  and  servitudes."  ^  It 
is  obvious  that  the  cahiers  could  not  have  acquired  this 
character  of  accuracy  if  the  peasants  had  not  themselves 
played  an  active  part  in  their  preparation.  This  point 
need  not  be  laboured,  nor  need  we  multiply  testimonies 
of  this  kind  ;  it  will  be  more  useful  to  discuss  the  question 
from  another  standpoint. 

First,  we  may  note  that  if  the  influence  of  the  cir- 
culated models  was  considerable  in  some  districts,  in 
Brittany,  for  example,  in  others  they  played  but  an 
insignificant  part.  M.  Gandilhon  declares  that,  so  far 
as  the  hailliage  of  Bourges  is  concerned,  there  is  scarcely 
a  trace  of  their  influence.  ^  But  even  where  the  models 
were  freely  used,  we  see  that,  as  a  general  rule,  they  were 
not  employed  in  any  servile  fashion.  It  is  clear  from  a 
comparison  of  the  models  with  parish  cahiers  that  the 
electoral  assemblies  considered  the  former  and  approved 
their  general  purport,  but  did  not  hesitate  to  expand  or 
amend  them  if  they  thought  fit.  The  cahier  of  Saint- 
L6,  for  example,  is  undoubtedly  based  on  Thouret's 
model,  but  "  is  none  the  less  an  original  production  ; 
twice  as  long  as  the  Suite  de  I'avis,  it  not  only  has  expan- 
sions which  are  its  own,  but  complete  clauses  which  are 
not  in  the  model.  The  latter,  copied  exactly  in  some 
places,  is  followed  only  with  considerable  modifications 
in  others,  which  proves  that  it  has  not  been  blindly 
adhered  to."  ^  An  examination  of  the  statements  for 
the  district  of  Rennes  shows  that  the  Charges  d'un  bon 
citoyen  de  campagne  was  used  in  a  similar  fashion  ;  some- 

^  Bridrey,  vol.  i.  pp.  71-2.  *  Gandilhon,  p.  xxxi. 

*  Champion,  p.  23  note. 


THE  PEASANTS  AND  THEIR  PROGRAMME    73 

times  the  amendments  are  slight,  sometimes  considerable, 
but  that  they  exist  at  all  is  proof  that  the  model  was 
subjected  to  criticism  and  discussion.  Clearly,  then,  if 
the  peasants  were  wilhng  to  utiUse  these  model  cahiers, 
they  did  not  employ  them  in  a  slav-ish  manner,  but  took 
them  simply  as  a  foundation  on  which  to  work. 

There  is,  moreover,  abundant  evidence  to  show  that 
the  assembhes  did  not  submit  sheepishly  to  dictation  in 
the  matter  of  their  complaints  and  programmes.     The 
strange  s3-ntax  and  spelling  of  many  of  the  cahiers  prove 
that  they  were  the  work  of  men  much  more  accustomed 
to    handling  a  hoe  than  a  pen.^     But  even  where  the 
peasants  confided  the  task  of  authorship  to  some  one 
more  instructed  than  themselves,  such  as  the  presiding 
ofl&cer,  a  local  lawyer  or  doctor,  or  the  village  priest,  they 
could  and  did  exercise  an  independent  judgment  on  the 
document    proposed    for    their    acceptance.     The    rural 
workers  in  1789  were  men  who  supported  gross  oppression 
with  extraordinary  patience,  but  their  bent  backs  were 
perceptibly  straightening,  and  they  were  not  a  herd  of 
dumb  cattle  who  would  obey  the  order  of  the  first  comer. 
When,  as  sometimes  happened,  the  officer^  who  presided 
oyer  the  assembly  was  also  an  agent  of  the  lord  of  the 
manor  and  endeavoured  to  force  his  own  ideas  upon  the 
inhabitants,  or  tried  to  prevent  them  from  giving  free 
expression  to  theirs,  the  records  show  us  the  peasants 
sharply  rea.ctiDg_again_st  suchjreatment  and  taking  steps 
to  secure  that  their  true  views  and  demands  were  incor- 
porated   in    the   cahiers.      Pierreville,   in  the   Cotentin, 
provides  us  with  a  good  example.     There  a  seigneurial 
officer  presided  over  the  electoral  assembly,  and  refused 
to  admit  the  complaints  of  the  people  as  to  local  matters. 
As  some  of  the  complaints  were  directed  against  feudal 
abuses,  his  motive  can  easily  be  understood.     But  the 
peasants    held    firm.     "  The    said    community,"    they 

1  "  The  language  of  the  cahiers  is  another  proof  of  their  popular 
origin,  of  their  sincerity-  and  originality."     Boissonade,  p.  lo. 


74    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

declared,  "  heard  the  statement  of  complaints  and 
grievances  drawn  up  by  the  principal  inhabitants  in  the 
manner  they  considered  just  and  reasonable,  and  in 
accordance  with  the  existing  condition  of  distress.  But 
they  were  neither  listened  to,  nor  acted  upon,  by  the 
said  bailiff ;  he  dictated  others  himself,  by  his  own 
authority,  and  permitted  no  discussion,  however  judicious 
and  respectful  to  his  authority  it  might  be.  .  .  .  This 
is  the  reason  the  said  community  has  again  assembled  in 
the  accustomed  manner  and  proceeded  to  frame  a  just 
statement  of  its  grievances."  ^  The  inhabitants  of 
Treverien  assembled  "  to  complain  against  the  seigneurs 
of  our  parish  "  ;  neither  the  seneschal  nor  the  procurator 
would  preside,  and  the  meeting  had  to  be  adjourned  till 
the  following  day,  when  the  parishioners  met  again  and 
complained  to  some  purpose,  as  a  glance  at  their  cahier 
will  show.  2  At  Bain,  the  seneschal  (subsequently  accused 
of  "  keeping  as  good  a  table  as  the  seigneur  himself  ") 
presided  over  a  small  assembly,  almost  entirely  made  up 
of  middle-class  persons.  The  statement  framed  under 
these  conditions  did  not  meet  the  \dews  of  the  rest  of  the 
parishioners,  as  it  failed  to  give  enough  attention' to  "  the 
things  which  overburden  the  inhabitants  of  the  aforesaid 
parish  of  Bain  "  ;  they  accordingly  called  a  fresh  meeting 
and  drew  up  a  second  statement  more  to  their  liking.^ 
At  Bleruais,  the  local  procurator-fiscal  called  the  primary 
assembly  together  in  the  lord's  chateau  where  he  "  en- 
deavoured to  intimidate  the  parish  and  force  it  to  sign 
a  cahier  de  doleafices  which  began  with  these  words,  '  The 
nobles  will  be  pleased  to  pay  taxes  Hke  purselves,  and 
we  shall  owe  them  a  debt  of  gratitude.'  After  having 
told  him  that  it  was  not  in  the  chateaux  of  noblemen 
that  assemblies  of  the  Third  Estate  ought  to  be  held, 
and  having  attended  at  the  sacristy  on  several  occasions," 
the  parishioners,  in  spite  of  the  procurator's  threats,  took 

^  Bridrey,  vol.  ii.  p.  456.  *  See  and  Lesort,  vol.  iii.  p.  227. 

2  Ibid.  vol.  ii.  p.  263. 


THE  PEASANTS  AND  THEIR  PROGRAMME     75 

the  principal  proprietor  of  the  place  as  their  president, 
and  adopted,  with  some  amendments,  the  very  radical 
cahier  of  Saint-Maugan.  These  additions,  it  is  worth 
noting,  strengthened  rather  than  moderated  the  fierce 
expressions  of  hatred  for  the  nobles  which  are  marked 
features  of  this  latter  document.^ 

The  peasants,  then,  were  not  mere  passive  instruments 
in  the  hands  of  their  social  superiors.  In  Brittany, 
indeed,  they  outstripped  the  middle  classes  of  the  towns 
in  the  radical  nature  of  their  programme.  The  latter, 
struggling  with  the  nobles  for  ascendancy,  speedily  dis- 
covered that  if  they  were  to  obtain  the  support  of  the 
rural  masses,  they  must  not  confine  their  demands  to 
fiscal  and  constitutional  questions,  but  must  go  forward 
to  attack  the  feudal  system  itself.  "  It  seems,"  say 
MM.  See  and  Lesort,  "  that  it  was  the  peasants  who 
first  agitated  the  question  of  the  feudal  system,  and 
the  bourgeoisie  was  compelled  to  adopt  the  greater  part 
of  their  demands."  ^ 

But  it  is  time  to  end  this  over-long  digression.  It 
would  not  be  difficult  to  accumulate  evidence  as  to  all 
the  points  touched  upon  in  the  preceding  paragraphs, 
but  enough  has  been  said  to  demonstrate  the  value  of 
the  cahiers  as  a  source  of  the  first  importance  for  this 
inquiry,  and  we  can  now  proceed  to  an  examination  of 
the  contents  of  the  documents  themselves,  in  so  far  as 
they  deal  with  economic  feudaUsm  in  1789. 

The  att^de  of  the  authors  of  the  cahiers  towards 
the  agrarian  system  permits  of  brief  description  :  it 
was  one  of  frank  hostility.  So  universal  was  this  feeling 
that  when  we  discover  a  solitary  instance  like  that  of 
Cieurac  (Quercy),  which  defended  it,  we  are  compelled 
to  suspect  its  authenticity.  This  was  probably  a  case 
where  the  peasants  had  been  cajoled  or  overawed.  But 
so  solitary  an  exception  may  be  held  to  prove  the  rule. 
The  cahiers  generally  adopt  the  view  that  the  rights  of  the 

*  S6e  and  L6sort,  vol.  iii.  p.  407.  •  Ibid.  vol.  i.  p.  xliii. 


76    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

privileged  orders  had  originated  in  force  or  fraud,  and 
were  actively  pernicious  in  their  exercise.  "  These  rights 
can  only  have  originated  in  the  days  when  the  unhappy 
vassal  was  reduced  to  servitude  under  the  hand  of  his 
lord,  in  the  days  when  he  dared  not  raise  his  voice  and 
was  compelled  to  submit  to  the  law  of  the  strongest  "  ; 
they  are  "  servitudes  imposed  by  the  seigneurs  at  the  time 
that  they  usurped  public  power  and  the  rights  of  royal 
authority  ;  they  are  contrary  to  natural  and  civil  liberty  ; 
they  are  barbarous  relics  of  feudal  anarchy  and  of  con- 
ditions too  hard  for  humanity."  They  are  "  so  many 
wounds  through  which  our  life-blood  drains  miserably 
away,"  and  "  owe  their  origin  to  the  usurpations  of  the 
clergy  and  the  nobles  in  the  troublous  times  when  they 
united  to  enfeeble  the  royal  power  and  to  oppress  the 
people."  "  The  rights  over  mills  and  ovens,  and  the 
corvees,  are  odious.  It  is  known  that  they  originated  in 
deceit  and  fraud,  one  might  even  say  in  force  and 
violence."  "  Their  origin  dates  from  the  times  of  slavery, 
and  it  would  be  worthy  of  an  age  of  liberty  to  annihilate 
them."  "  Most  of  these  rights  are  the  fruit  of  the  law 
of  the  strongest.  The  ignorance  and  barbarism  of  the 
early  ages  gave  them  birth."  ^  The  peasants  are  con- 
scious of  their  true  function  in  society,  and  contrast  it  with 
the  treatment  meted  out  to  them.  "  We  are  the  prin- 
cipal projTof  the  throne,  the  true  support  of  the  armies. 
.  .  .  We  are  the  source  of  riches  for  others  and  ourselves 
remain  in  poverty.  .  .  .  We  wilHngly  consent  to  live 
in  that  state  of  life  to  which  Providence  has  called  us, 
but  ...  it  is  too  hard  and  revolting  to  support  all  that 
is  onerous  in  the  state  and  to  lack  bread  half  our  days."  ^ 
Starting  from  such  a  standpoint  many  of  the  cahiers  go 
on  to  deniand  the  radical  destruction  of  feudahsm.     "  The 

^  Bridrey,  vol.  ii.  p.  596  ;  See  and  Lesort,  vol.  ii.  p.  328  ;  Sagnac, 
p.  77  ;  Boissonade,  p.  217;  Bligny-Bondurand,  vol.  i.  p.  330;  Vernier, 
vol.  i.  p.  485. 

» Marion,  Bordeaux. 


THE  PEASANTS  AND  THEIR  PROGRAMME     77 

feudal  system  has  produced  nothing  but  slaves  ;  the 
branches  of  the  tree  have  been  cut  down  but  the  trunk 
still  remains,  and  the  axe  must  be  employed  to  over- 
throw it  entirely  "  ;  it  is  necessary  "  to  extirpate  the 
very  root  of  the  evil.  Palliatives  do  not  befit  a  nation  ; 
iron  must  be  used  to  destroy  abuses  the  moment  they  are 
known."  ^  The  inhabitants  of  Fontenay-Bossery  enumer- 
ate a  catalogue  of  rights,  and  demand  that  they  "  be 
suppressed  as  outrageous  reUcs  of  ser\dtude  and  feudal- 
ism "  ;  those  of  Combleux  msh  for  "  the  suppression  of 
the  ruinous  rights  "  ;  "  feudalism  ought  not  to  exist  in  a 
free  state,"  cry  those  of  Chaon.  The  community  of 
Margerie  "  demands  that  the  cens,  the  seigneurial  corvees, 
the  monopolies,  and  other  feudal  rights  injurious  to  the 
liberty  of  persons  and  properties  shall  be  abohshed."  ' 
Others  formulate  their  demands  in  a  similar  strain,  some 
of  them  attacking  particularly  the  feudal  rights  possessed 
by  ecclesiastical  corporations.  "  There  still  exist  divers 
dues,  called  seigneurial  or  feudal,  which  ought  to  disappear 
from  the  sight  of  every  French  citizen  who  is  free  by  right 
from  all  that  savours  of  servitude."  "  Let  the  ecclesi- 
astical and  monastic  lordships  be  suppressed,  since  they 
only  inspire  pride  in  those  who  possess  them  and  distract 
them  from  the  service  of  the  altars  ;  moreover,  they  are 
repugnant  to  the  spirit  of  Jesus  Christ,  who  says  that 
His  kingdom  is  not  of  this  world  ;  they  are  contrary 
to  the  vows  of  humility  and  poverty  taken  by  the  monks. 
. . .  Abolish  all  feudal  rights,  such  as  quint  and  reqnmt,lods 
et  ventes,  cens,  champarts,  and  hanalites  ;  they  are  heavy 
charges  for  the  country  people,  and  are  so  many  monu- 
ments of  feudal  servitude,  contrary  to  the  constitution  of 
a  free  nation."  "  It  will  always  be  futile  to  invite  the 
peasants  to  make  their  grievances  known  if  the  King 
do  not  determine,  with  the  help  of  the  Nation,  to  suppress 
all  feudalism  throughout  the  realm.  .  .  .  The  royal  and 

*  Sagnac,  p.  78. 

•  Por6e,  p.  228  ;  Bloch,  vol.  i.  pp.  40  and  372  ;  Laurent,  p.  431. 


78    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

local  taxes  weigh  less  upon  them  than  this  immensity  of 
feudal  duties  which  surrounds  them  on  every  hand.  .  .  , 
The  use  of  lettres  de  cachet  scarcely  affects  the  peasants, 
but  what  come  home  to  them  much  more  nearly  are  the 
rights  which  weigh  upon  their  small  properties,  and  the 
daily  attempts  of  their  seigneurs,  especially  when  they 
are  great  and  powerful,  to  break  these  up  by  the  estab- 
lishment of  some  new  charge.  .  .  .  The  true  regeneration 
of  France  will  never  be  achieved  so  long  as  a  vestige  of 
servitude  is  allowed  to  exist.  .  .  .  An  exact  reform  of 
the  civil  code  will  never  be  executed  unless,  by  the  ex- 
tirpation of  feudal  slavery,  the  source  of  so  many  suits  is 
dried  up."  "  It  (the  parish)  .  .  .  demands  the  abolition 
of  feudalism,  the  rights  of  lods  et  ventes,  censives,  main- 
morie,  etc.,  all  rights  of  servitude  which  are  repugnant 
to  the  liberty  of  a  free  people.  To  belong  to  one's  king 
and  country  suffices."  ^ 

But  the  demands  of  the  peasants  were,  for  the  most 
part,  less  radical.  Sometimes  the}^  contented  them- 
selves with'asking  that  the  seigneurs  should  prove  their 
legal  right  to  the  dues  they  claimed.  "  As  we  doubt 
the  legality  of  a  great  part  of  these  rents,  or  at  least  of  the 
rates  at  which  they  are  fixed,  we  supplicate  His  Majesty 
to  deign  to  compel  the  production  of  the  titles,  so  that 
we  may  know  the  truth  as  to  our  exorbitant  charges," 
"  In  case  His  Majesty  does  not  consider  it  just  to  suppress 
them  [the  feudal  rights],  let  the  seigneur  be  obliged  to 
justify  his  title  to  them  at  his  own  expense."  "  His 
Majesty  shall  be  very  humbly  entreated  to  estabUsh  a 
commission  before  which  the  lords  shall  be  obliged  to 
produce  their  titles,  so  that  the  said  commission,  after 
examining  them  and  the  memorials  of  the  inhabitants, 
may  confirm,  or  extinguish  the  servitudes  demanded." 
"  If  the  king  prefer  not  to  be  the  sole  seigneur  in  the 
province  (which  would,  however,  be  the  most  profitable 

1  Bridrey,  vol.  ii.  p.  196  ;  Laurent,  pp.  445-8  ;  Bligny-Bondurand, 
vol.  i.  pp.  339-41  ;  Vernier,  vol.  i.  p.  636. 


THE  PEASANTS  AND  THEIR  PROGRAMME      79 

course  for  himself  and  his  subjects),  all  the  nobles  who 
pretend  to  rights  over  the  property  of  the  people  shall 
produce  the  primordial  proofs  of  the  estabhshment  of 
these  rights  in  good  and  due  form.  .  .  .  All  those  which 
prove  to  be  unfounded  shall  be  regarded  as  abusive  and 
abohshed,  and  there  shall  be  no  justification  by  pre- 
scription from  any  date  whatever,  nor  by  immemorial 
possession."  ^  The  same  cahier,  however,  goes  on  to 
demand  that  the  vassals  shall  be  able  to  enfranchise 
themselves  by  purchase  from  the  dues  which  have  a 
legal  foundation,  and  this  is  the  point  of  view  generally 
adopted  in  the  programmes  drawn  up  by  the  parish 
meetings.  The  cahier  of  Nerondes,  in  the  Bourbonnais,  is 
exceptional  in  that  after  demanding  "  the  suppression  of 
the  vestiges  of  feudahsm,"  it  goes  on  to  exclaim,  "  but  no 
purchase  ;  let  there  be  restored  to  the  nation  a  liberty 
which  has  beert  wrested  from  it."  ^  Some  of  the  com- 
munities appear  to  have  envisaged  a  scheme  of  purchase 
operated  by  the  government,  such  as  Turgot  had  planned  ; 
thus  the  cahier  of  Touzac  says  "  that  His  Majesty  shall 
be  entreated  to  liberate  them  from  the  feudal  dues  which 
diminish  the  product  of  the  land,  by  paying  such  an 
indemnity  to  the  seigneurs  as  he  shall  think  fit."  ^  For 
the  most  part,  however,  indixidual  enfranchisements 
weie  evidently  what  the  peasants  had  in  mind,  and  to 
this  end  it  was  necessary  to  abohsh  all  soHdarity  in  the 
matter  of  charges.  Thus,  the  cahier  of  Savignac-de- 
Miremont  (Dordogne),  described  by  M.  Marcel  Marion 
as  the  most  anti-feudal  in  its  district,  begins  with  a 
reference  to  the  seigneurs  as  "  leeches,"  and  then  pro- 
ceeds, "  Render  the  dues  redeemable,  destroy  all  solid- 
arity, that  barbarous  custom  which  destroys  the  liberty 
that  is  the  natural  birthright  of  Frenchmen,  and  leave 
to  the  seigneur  over  his  vassal  only  the  right  of  forcing 

*  Saint-L^ger  and  Sagnac.  vol,  i.  p.  117  ;    Poree,  p.  228  ;   Laurent, 
p.  502  ;  S6e  apH  L6sort.  vol.  iii.  p.  402. 

*  Chassin.  •  Foyrastii,  p.  341. 


80    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

him  to  love  him,  to  esteem  him,  and  to  respect  his  good 
qualities."  A  few  other  typical  demands  for  redemption 
may  be  quoted.  "  Let  feudalism  be  destroyed  through- 
out Brittany  ;  it  gives  too  much  power  to  the  lords  over 
their  vassals ;  and  if  this  eternal  truth  still  stand  that  a 
debtor  may  satisfy  his  creditor,  let  the  tyrannical  and 
barbarous  laws  which  render  the  corvees,  servitudes,  and 
charges  irredeemable  be  abolished  and  replaced  by  a 
law  which  permits  each  vassal  to  free  himself  from  them." 
"  Let  each  individual  be  authorised  to  redeem  the  feudal 
rights  .  .  .  and  let  the  price  of  the  indemnity  they  must 
pay  be  fixed."  "  The  deputies  at  the  States-General 
will  demand  that  all  feudal  rights,  save  the  cejts,  shall 
be  redeemable  at  the  will  of  the  vassals."  ^ 

Many  of  the  cahiers  draw  distinctions  between  different 
categories  of  rights  ;  of  some  they  demand  the  suppression 
outright,  of  others  the  abolition  by  purchase.  Thus  a 
Norman  parish  calls  for  the  abolition  of  "  all  monopolies, 
corvees,  and  thirteenths,  and  the  amortisation  of  feudal 
rents."  ^  Amont  (Vesoul)  desires  the  extinction  without 
indemnity  of  "  personal "  mainmorte  throughout  the 
realm  and  of  "  real  "  mainmorte  on  ecclesiastical  estates  ; 
the  latter,  and  all  other  feudal  dues,  are  to  be  redeemed 
at  twenty  years'  purchase  on  lay  estates  ;  Milieu  (Dole) 
makes  a  similar  demand.'^  Saponcourt  puts  forward  an 
identical  request  as  regards  mainmorte,  and  goes  on  to 
demand  the  reformation  and  abolition  of  all  banalites, 
servitudes,  and  charges  ;  the  abolition  of  the  tithe,  and 
the  stoppage  of  payments  due  to  the  Abbey  of  Cherlieu 
on  account  of  a  lawsuit  concerning  woods  which  the 
peasants  had  lost,  and  the  restitution  to  them  of  the 
sums  already  paid.^ 

A  number  of  the  cahiers  content  themselves  with 
attacking  particular  rights  and  calling  for  their  abolition 

1  See  and  Lesort,  vol.  ii.  p.  39  ;   Gandilhon,  p.  47  ;   Poree,  p.  543. 
'^  Bridrey,  vol.  iii.  p.  1 1 7.  *  Chassin. 

«Finot,  1881. 


THE  PEASANTS  AND  THEIR  PROGRAMME     81 

or  reformation.  Their  authors  felt,  no  doubt,  that  it 
was  hopeless  to  expect  more  than  this  Hmited  relief. 
The  monopolies  and  the  hunting  rights  bulk  most  largely 
in  the"  statements  of  this  class.  Sometimes  the  peasants 
simply  ask  that  the  pigeons  should  be  shut  up  at  seed- 
time and  harvest,  and  that  the  hunts  should  be  restrained 
from  injuring  the  crops.  "  Nothing  is  more  urgent  than 
to  discover  a  remedy  for  these  abuses,  and  the  true 
means,  it  would  seem,  is  to  suppress  these  hunting  rights, 
or  that  at  least  the  seigneurs  should  be  forbidden  to  hunt 
elsewhere  than  on  their  own  domains."  ^  "  The  number 
of  cotes  and  pigeon-houses  is  so  great  that  the  pigeons 
do  great  wrong  to  the  cultivators.  .  .  .  May  it  please 
His  Majesty,  therefore,  to  order  that  the  said  cotes  and 
pigeon-houses  belonging  to  those  who  have  no  legal 
titles  for  them  be  pulled  down  and  destroyed  for  ever  ; 
at  the  same  time,  it  is  desirable  that  those  who  have  a 
right  to  them  should  be  obhged  to  shut  up  their  pigeons 
during  the  harvest,  the  season  when  they  do  the  greatest 
damage."  ^ 

As  has  been  said,  the  question  of  enclosures  was  at 
this  time  a  burning  one,  and  the  cahiers,  especially  those 
of  Brittany,  give  plentiful  e\adence  of  the  feehng  that 
had  been  aroused.  "The  pastures  in  the  parish  of  Cesson 
have  all  been  leased  out  by  the  seigneurs  ;  these  leases 
have  brought  the  inhabitants  who  have  no  land  attached 
to  their  houses  to  beggary  ;  the  pastures  served  to  graze 
their  cattle,  now  it  is  impossible  for  them  to  keep  any." 
Plerguer  points  out  that  the  inhabitants  of  northern 
Brittany  "  found  a  resource  in  the  waste  lands  named 
commons,  which  furnished  nourishment  and  grazing  for 
the  cattle.  Since  a  wide  extent  of  these  unproductive 
lands  has  been  leased  out  by  the  proprietors  of  the  fiefs 
in  which  they  are  situated,  the  unhappy  inhabitants  of 
the  neighbourhood,  deprived  of  this  resource,  are  also 
deprived  of  cattle  and  of  the  manure  they  obtained  from 

>  S6e  and  L6sort,  vol.  iii.  p.  187.  •  Bridrey,  vol.  i.  p.  232. 

6 


82    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

them,  and  are  reduced  in  consequence  to  the  most  frightful 
poverty.  It  is  indispensable,  then,  that  these  common 
lands  should  be  restored  to  their  original  and  natural 
ownership  without  division,  that  is,  to  the  neighbouring 
populations  to  whom  they  belong,  and  that  in  future 
neither  the  proprietors  of  fiefs  nor  any  other  individuals 
shall  dispose  of  them  for  their  personal  benefit."  The 
inhabitants  of  Saint-Martin-du-Tertre  complain  that 
"  they  formerly  possessed  common  woods  which  are  now 
enjoyed  by  the  Archbishop  of  Sens,  and  that  the  suits 
occasioned  by  damages  in  these  woods  ruin  a  number  of 
the  inhabitants  every  year  ;  they  demand  to  have  the 
ownership  of  these  common  woods  restored  to  them." 
"  Let  the  seigneurs  no  longer  dare,"  says  the  cahier  of 
Dornont,  near  Paris,  "  to  seize  the  communal  lands  and 
appropriate  or  sell  the  lots  used  by  the  community.  As 
for  the  lots  that  they  have  already  taken,  let  them  be 
restored  to  their  natural  condition."  Another  demands 
that  "  the  clearings,  wastes,  and  common  pastures  shall 
not  be  invaded  without  an  express  and  legal  title,  and 
that  those  enclosed  during  the  last  thirty  years  shall  be 
restored."  "  Our  territory,"  says  that  of  Ville-d'Avray, 
"  during  the  last  ten  years  has  become  so  circumscribed 
that  our  hands  remain  idle  because  of  the  quantity  of 
enclosures  that  have  been  made  ;  we  demand  that  no 
one  shall  be  permitted  henceforward  to  enclose  without 
the  previous  permission  of  the  parish."  ^ 

Up  to  the  present,  we  have  found  the  peasants  generally 
unanimous  as  to  one  point  :  whether  their  demands  are 
radical  or  moderate,  all  wish  to  see  agrarian  feudalism 
directly  attacked,  but  when  we  come  to  examine  their 
attitude  towards  the  feudal  courts,  this  unanimity  dis- 
appears. A  few  typical  extracts  will  illustrate  the  point. 
Saint- Jean-de-Bere  demands  "  the  suppression  of  feudal 
justices  and  jurisdictions,  and  that  there  be  established 

^  S6e  and  L6sort,  vol.  ii.  pp.  77  and  675  ;  Poree,  p.  48  ;  Kareiew, 
p.  83  ;   Kovalewsky,  vol.  i.  p.  154  ;  Thenard,  p.  18. 


THE  PEASANTS  AND  THEIR  PROGRAMME      83 

royal  courts  whose  districts  shall  extend  for  five  or  six 
leagues  at  the  most."     "  The  desire  of  the  community 
[of  Lherm]  is  .  .  .  that  all  the  seigneurial  courts  shall 
be  suppressed,  and  that  justices  of  the  peace,  who  will 
decide  most  disputes  at  their  commencement,  shall  be 
established  in  each  community.     This  article  will  dis- 
please  the   procurators   and   the   judges,   but,    without 
doubt,  it  will  be  approved  by  all  persons  well-intentioned 
towards   the   State."     Argenteuil,   on   the   other   hand, 
instructs  its  deputies  to  demand  "  that  the  jurisdictions 
be  maintained  in  the  parish  ...  as  they  have  always 
existed,  seeing  that  the  parish  is  sufficiently  large  and 
that    their    removal    elsewhere    would    occasion    heavy 
expense  to  the  inhabitants."  ^    This  last  clause  gives  us 
the  true  reason  for  the  differences  of  opinion.     The  feudal 
courts  were  bad  and  their  officers  oppressive,  but  they 
were,  at  any  rate,  close  at  hand.     Poor  and  unlettered 
men  dreaded  the  journeys,  the  expenses,  and  delays  which 
they  believed  would  result  from  their  supersession  by  the 
state  tribunals.     The  cahiers  are  filled  with  complaints 
as  to  the  costhness  and  dilatory  procedure  of  the  latter, 
complaints  which  were  quite  justified  ;  and  it  is  small 
wonder  that  many,  perhaps  the  majority,  of  the  peasants 
preferred  to  endure  the  evil  that  lay  at  their  own  doors 
rather  than  to   go    farther  and  fare  worse.     Those    of 
Eclaires  even  went  to  the  length  of  demanding  that  royal 
jurisdictions  should  be  replaced  by  feudal.     "  Let  the 
royal  courts  in  villages  and  small  towns,"  they  wrote, 
"  be  converted  into  seigneurial  jurisdictions,  so  that  the 
costs  of  litigants  may  not  be  so  heavy  as  in  the  past."  * 
On  the  subject  of  the  tithes  we  find  a  similar  absence 
of  agreement,  though  there  is  general  discontent  in  regard 
to   their   amount,    the   method  of   collection,    and   the 
manner  of  their  appUcation.     A  characteristic  expression 
of  opinion  on  this  last  point  is  to  be  found  in  a  letter 

1  S6e  and  L6sort,  vol.  ii.  p.  328  ;  Foura3ti6,  p.  215  ;  Por6e,  p.  554. 
•  Laurent,  p.  239. 


84    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

addressed    to    Necker   by   one   Miliard,    a   peasant,   in 
December    1788.     He    attacked    the    canons    of    Saint 
Maurice  at  Vienne,   and  continued,   "  The  poor  suffer 
from  cold  and  hunger,  while  the  canons  feast  and  think 
of  nothing  but  fattening  themselves  like  pigs  that  are  to 
be  killed  at  Easter."  ^     The  cahiers  tell  a  similar  story. 
"  Another  pest  destructive  to  our  revenues,"  says  that 
of  Belief ond,  "  is  the  tithe,  so  scrupulously  demanded  by 
its  owners  ;    for  if  the  rumour,  whether  true  or  false, 
reach  an  ecclesiastic's  ear  that  a  poor  wretch,  driven  by 
necessity,  has  retained  a  handful  of  corn  or  a  few  grapes, 
immediately  he  grumbles,  thunders,  preaches,  menaces, 
probes  the  recesses  of  conscience,  and  imposes  a  penance 
as  heavy  as  if  the  man  were  guilty  of  a  great  crime."  ^ 
There  is  hearty  sympathy  with  the  poor  village  priests, 
and  a  general  wish  that  they  should  be  relieved  of  the 
necessity  for  charging  fees  by  an  increase  of  salaries,  but 
at  this  point  agreement  ends.     Most  of  the  parishes  only 
seek  reforms,  whether  in  the  amount  of  the  tithe  or  the 
use  to  which  it  is  put.     "  The  tithes  are  a  heavy  charge 
imposed  upon  us  by  religion  that  we  willingly  pay,  but 
we  should  pay  more  willingly  still  if  we  sajv  them  used 
in  a  manner  which  conformed  to  their  institution  by 
both  divine  and  human  law."  ^    A  few  demands  appear 
for  the  transformation  of  the  tithes  into  a  money  pay- 
ment, and  a  larger  number — though  a  minority  of  the 
whole — demands  their  abolition  outright.     Thus  Vannes 
sohcits  "  the  abolition  of  all  tithes  and  champarts  levied 
upon  different  objects  of  agriculture  and  enterprises  in 
general."     "  We   demand  the  suppression  of  the  tithes 
and  the  according  to  Messieurs  the  cures  of  the  realm, 
an  honest  and  sufficient  pension."     "  Suppress  all  the 
tithes  as  absolutely  contrary  to  freedom  of  property  and 
injurious  to  agriculture  "  ;   "let  the  rector  of  this  parish 
be  pensioned  with  the  sum  of  a  thousand  livres  .  .  .  and 

1  Kardiew,  p.  58.  *  Marion,  Bordeaux. 

*  Marion,  Dime  eccUsiastique,  p.  196. 


THE  PEASANTS  AND  THEIR  PROGRAMME     85 

let  the  tithe  be  suppressed  and  aboHshed."  "  Our  final 
demand  is  that  the  religious  communities  be  deprived  of 
the  tithes  they  levy  in  the  pro\'inces.  .  .  .  This  is  an 
usurpation  made  upon  the  parish  priests  who  ought  to 
be  the  sole  proprietors."  "  It  is  above  all  for  the  absolute 
and  irrevocable  suppression  of  the  tithe  that  the  com- 
munity of  Bellegarde  would  wish  to  give  to  its  demands 
that  strength  and  energy  which  render  truth  and  reason 
more  persuasive.  The  weight  of  this  crushing  charge  is 
the  more  insupportable  to  it  since  it  knows  the  absurdity 
of  the  means  by  which  it  was  established,  the  conditions 
which  caused  it  to  be  accepted,  the  use  to  which  its 
product  is  put,  and  the  discouragement  that  it  casts  upon 
the  soul  of  the  cultivator."  ^  It  is  worth  noting  that 
feeling  was  much  stronger  against  the  tithes  in  some 
regions  than  in  others  ;  this  is  particularly  noticeable  in 
the  case  of  the  communities  of  the  senechaussee  of  Nimes. 
Possibly  this  is  to  be  accounted  for  by  the  existence  of  a 
strong  Huguenot  element  in  the  population. 

The  land-hunger  of  the  peasants  found  expression  in 
many  demands  for  the  abolition  oi  franc-fief,  and  for  the 
sale  of  crown  and  monastic  lands.  The  latter,  being  the 
property  of  corporate  bodies,  were  withheld  from  the 
market,  and  the  deficit  in  the  finances  on  the  one  hand, 
and  the  general  decay  of  monasticism  on  the  other, 
provided  ready  justification  for  the  demand.  "  The 
right  of  franc-fief  is  a  humihating  tax  for  the  Third 
Estate  ;  Nature  has  not  divided  properties  into  noble 
and  plebeian."  "  Lands  differ  from  one  another  only  by 
reason  of  the  goodness,  the  mediocrity,  or  the  badness 
of  the  soil,  their  culture  or  lack  of  culture.  The  nobiUty 
attributed  to  some  ...  is  only  an  ideal  thing.  His 
Majesty  shall  be  entreated  to  suppress  the  tax  of  franc- 
fief  ...  it  has  caused  the  ruin  of  a  great  number  of 

^  Bloch,  vol.  i.  p.  341  ;  Bridrey,  vol.  ii.  p.  io6  ;  S6e  and  L^sort, 
vol.  ii.  pp.  9  and  172;  Vernier,  vol.  i.  p.  507;  Bligny  -  Bondurand, 
vol.  i.  p.  120. 


86    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

commoners,  principally  the  inhabitants  of  the  rural 
districts."  "  The  right  oi  franc-fief  ought  to  be  abolished, 
because  in  its  origin  this  tax  was  only  imposed  on  com- 
moners to  take  the  place  of  the  military  service  due  from 
the  fiefs  they  had  bought  from  seigneurs  who  were  obliged 
to  serve  in  the  army  at  their  own  charges.  As  to-day 
the  lords  and  nobles  are  free  from  this  ancient  obligation, 
and,  on  the  contrary,  are  paid  for  their  services  by  the 
nation,  the  commoners  possessing  francs-fiefs  ought  to 
enjoy  the  same  privileges,  since  the  cost  of  the  army  is  not 
charged  upon  the  fiefs  but  upon  the  national  revenue."  ^ 
"  The  sale  of  the  royal  domains  would  provide  the  State 
with  an  annual  revenue  by  means  of  the  taxes  on  transfers 
that  the  return  of  these  lands  to  commerce  would  en- 
gender, and  through  the  contributions  of  the  new  pro- 
prietors to  the  pubHc  taxes."  Other  communities 
specifically  request  that  the  crown  lands  should  be  sold 
or  leased  in  parcels  small  enough  to  enable  the  poorer 
classes  of  peasants  to  acquire  them.  "  We  demand  that 
150  arpents  of  land  be  taken  from  each  of  the  royal  farms, 
and  let  out  in  lots  of  four  or  five  arpents,  so  as  to  help 
the  villagers  and  enable  them  to  five."  "  His  Majesty, 
being  the  proprietor  of  almost  the  whole  of  the  territory 
of  Buc,  is  entreated  to  sell  the  land  in  small  portions  to 
the  highest  bidder,  on  good  and  solvent  security,  for  the 
purpose  of  giving  more  work  and  wages  to  the  inhabitants 
of  this  parish."  "  Let  the  royal  domains  be  declared 
ahenable,  and,  as  such,  sold,  not  in  large  portions  but 
in  lots."  2 

Other  cahiers,  again,  denounce  the  leasing-out  of  the 
seigneurial  domains  in  large  farms,  a  practice  which  was 
obviously  more  profitable  and  less  troublesome  to  their 
owners,  but  was  held  to  be  injurious  to  the  peasants' 
interests.     "  Too  large  farms  are  bad  for  various  reasons  : 

1  Bloch,  vol.  i.  p.  181  ;  See  and  L6sort,  vol.  iii.  p.  680  ;  Boissonade, 
p.  458. 

*  Kovalewsky,  vol.  i.  p.  92  ;  Th6nard,  pp.  61,  171,  292. 


I 


THE  PEASANTS  AND  THEIR  PROGRAMME     87 

they  diminish  population  and  augment  the  indigent 
class  ;  they  inevitably  produce  a  shortage  of  cattle  and 
a  lack  of  manure.  For  these  reasons,  forbid  the  destruc- 
tion of  small  farms  and  order  the  break-up  of  those  which 
are  too  large."  "It  is  a  misfortune,  both  for  private 
individuals  and  for  the  State,"  say  the  inhabitants  of 
Boitron,  "  that  a  rich  man  should  be  allowed  to  hold 
several  farms  ;  by  that  means,  he  reduces  to  poverty 
ten  or  twelve  households  which  lived  well  and  brought 
up  numerous  famiUes."  To  meet  these  evils,  a  limit 
should  be  set  to  the  size  of  farms.  "  Permit  no  farmer 
to  have  the  exploitation  of  more  than  300  mencaudees  of 
land,  his  own  included,"  says  one  cahier  ;  "  let  a  law 
be  made  which  forbids  all  peasants  to  occupy  and  exploit 
more  than  one  farm  in  the  same  parish,  above  all,  if  one 
is  sufficient  to  allow  an  individual  and  his  family  to  exist," 
says  that  of  Saint-Cyr.^ 

Some  of  the  peasants,  as  we  have  said,  cast  envious 
eyes  upon  the  estates  of  the  monastic  orders.  "  To  meet 
the  deficit  the  King  could  sell  the  lands  and  rents  belonging 
to  the  clergy  .  .  .  there  would  result  a  great  advantage 
by  bringing  all  these  lands  into  the  market."  "  To 
relieve  the  unhappy.  His  Majesty  ought  to  take  possession 
of  the  abbeys  and  other  properties  owned  by  the  monks." 
"  Let  the  ecclesiastical  corporations  be  ordered  to  sell 
their  properties  so  as  to  bring  them  into  circulation." 
Villedebidon,  most  radical  of  all,  demands  "  that  the 
lands  of  the  abbeys  shall  revert  to  the  poor."  '  But  in 
spite  of  these  proposals,  aimed  at  a  generally  unpopular 
section  of  society,  we  find  in  the  cahiers  no  suggestion  of 
an  "  agrarian  law,"  such  as  haunted  the  classically-fed 
imagination  of  the  revolutionary  legislators  ;  the  nearest 
approach — and  that  a  very  timid  one — to  anything  of 
the  kind  is  in  a  cahier  from  the  Hautes-Pyr^n^es,  where 

^  Kovalewsky,  vol.  i.  pp.  50,  68,  150  ;   Th6nard,  p.  182. 
*  Fourasti6,  p.  346  ;  Gandilhon,  p.  41  ;  Bloch,  vol.  i.  p.  138  ;  Dupont, 
p.  no. 


88    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

there  is  question  "  of  the  necessity  for  compelHng  the 
seigneurs  to  sell  their  estates  to  the  people  .  .  .  while 
paying  them  a  fourth  of  their  value  beyond  the  just 
price  at  twenty  years'  purchase."  ^ 

We  find,  then,  widespread  discontent  with  the 
agrarian  system  among  the  peasants  in  the  spring  of 
1789  ;  only  a  minority  suggests  radical  or  revolutionary 
methods  of  deahng  with  that  system,  but  it  is  clear  that 
if  favouring  circumstances  arise,  the  peasants  as  a  class 
will  not  be  slow  to  attack  the  whole  monstrous  and 
superannuated  edifice. 

1  Loutchisky,  Quelques  remarques  sur  la  vente  des  Biens  Nationaux, 
p.  24. 


CHAPTER  III 
THE  FIRST  PEASANT  REVOLT 

THE  peasants  had  assembled  in  their  parish 
meetings,  discussed  their  many  wrongs,  formu- 
lated their  modest  programmes,  elected  their 
deputies,  and  returned  to  their  homes,  there  to  await  a 
happy  deliverance  at  the  hands  of  Necker,  "  the  virtuous 
minister,"  and  Louis  XVI,  "  the  best  of  kings."  Their 
mood  was  one  in  which  gratitude  mingled  with  a  fearful 
hope.  But  spring  gave  way  to  summer  ;  April  sHd  into 
May,  May  into  June,  and  still  nothing  was  done.  The 
vision  of  a  new  earth  began  to  be  clouded  by  doubts 
and  suspicions.  News  travelled  infinitely  slowly  in  the 
countryside.  Arthur  Young,  arriving  at  Chateau-Thierry 
on  4  July,  found  neither  a  coffee-house  where  he  could 
hear  news,  nor  a  newspaper  in  which  he  could  read 
it.  "  Here  are  two  parishes  and  some  thousands  of 
inhabitants,  and  not  a  newspaper  to  be  seen  by  a  traveller, 
even  in  a  moment  when  all  ought  to  be  anxiety.  What 
stupidity,  poverty,  and  want  of  circulation  !  "  Besan^on, 
the  capital  of  Franche-Comte,  and  a  town  with  25,000 
inhabitants,  received  the  post  but  three  times  each  week, 
and  could  only  afford  Young  a  newspaper  that  was  a 
fortnight  old.  At  Dijon  he  found  that  nothing  was 
known  of  the  insurrection  at  Strasburg  which  had  taken 
place  nine  days  before.  Marseilles,  the  third  city  of  the 
realm,  heard  of  the  events  of  14  July  at  Paris  four  days 
after  they  had  taken  place. ^ 

*  Viguier,  p.  108. 
89 


90    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

Such  news  as  actually  circulated  was  mingled  with 
sinister  rumour.  When  the  intrepid  Enghsh  traveller 
reached  Thueyts  in  the  middle  of  August,  he  found 
his  agricultural  investigations  much  hampered  by  the 
popular  belief  that  he  was  an  agent  of  "  the  Queen,  the 
count  d'Artois,  and  the  count  d'Entragues,"  these  august 
persons  being,  as  "  was  known  to  a  certainty  ...  in  a 
conspiracy  against  the  Vivarais."  ^  The  large  towns, 
even,  were  no  better  off,  if  we  may  accept  Young's 
account  of  Dijon  as  at  all  typical.  He  found  rumour 
there  as  full  of  tongues  as  at  Thueyts — and  as  little 
enlightened  !  It  was  firmly  believed  that  the  Queen  had 
been  found  guilty  of  "  a  plot  to  poison  the  King  and  Mon- 
sieur, and  give  the  regency  to  the  Count  d'Artois  ;  to  set 
fire  to  Paris  and  blow  up  the  Palais  Roy  ale  by  a  mine."  * 

Indeed,  the  news  that  must  have  been  circulating  in 
June  and  early  Julj^  of  1789  could  have  brought  small 
comfort  to  the  country-folk.  They  must  have  heard 
of  the  upright  deputies  of  the  Tiers  struggling  against  the 
selfish  nobihty  and  higher  clergy — those  new  Pharaohs 
who  refused  to  let  the  people  go  free  ;  of  the  good  king 
misled  by  his  scandalous  brothers  and  his  Austrian  queen. 
Had  not  they  or  some  other  enemies  of  the  commonweal 
inspired  the  royal  declaration  of  23  June,  the  words 
of  which  must  have  sounded  in  the  peasants'  ears  like 
the  death-knell  of  all  their  hopes  ?  "  All  properties 
without  exception  must  be  absolutely  respected,  and 
His  Majesty  expressly  includes  in  the  word  '  properties  ' 
tithes,  rent-charges,  feudal  and  seigneurial  rights  and 
duties ;  in  general,  all  the  rights  and  prerogatives 
attaching  to  lands  and  fiefs  which  belong  to  private 
persons."  Perhaps,  even,  the  king  had  given  orders 
for  the  peasants'  relief  and  the  nobles  had  suppressed 
them.  So,  at  any  rate,  men  were  whispering  to  one 
another  in  Dauphine  in  mid- July.  ^ 

Thus,  as  the  days    grew  hotter,  men's  blood  grew 

^  Young,  19  August  1789.       ^  /jjj^^  ^j  j^iy  1789.       »  Conard,  p.  34. 


THE  FIRST  PEASANT  REVOLT  91 

hotter  too.  We  can  easily  picture  the  discussions  in  the 
evenings  and  at  rest -hours  in  the  fields,  and  hear  the  note 
of  hope  deepening  to  one  of  anger.  The  "  great  folks'" 
who  were  to  do  something  for  the  "  poor  ones  "  had 
failed  or  betrayed  them  ;  what  if  the  peasant  sought 
his  own  remedy  ?  The  memories  of  the  electoral  propa- 
ganda of  the  spring  must  have  taken  on  a  fresh  signifi- 
cance. We  know  that  in  Brittany,  for  example,  the 
spokesmen  of  the  town  bourgeoisie,  striving  to  win  over 
the  peasant  masses  to  their  side,  had  preached  a  veritable 
social  war  against  the  nobles.  They  had  spoken  of 
"  the  enormous  fortunes  which  corrupt  society  "  ;  of  the 
"  enormous  abuse "  by  reason  of  which  "  twelve  or 
fifteen  hundred  citizens  labour  all  the  year  for  a  single 
man."  They  had  declared  that  "  in  France  we  have 
only  two  social  classes  :  the  one  made  up  of  those  who 
enjoy  and  do  not  work,  the  other  of  those  who  work  and 
do  not  enjoy  "  ;  they  had  demanded  of  the  rich  that 
they  should  "  cease  to  starve  the  poor  man  ;  cease  to 
dispute  its  bread  with  the  people."  ^  Similar  propa- 
ganda had  doubtless  been  carried  on  in  other  parts  of  the 
country  (we  know  this  was  the  case  in  Burgundy),-  a  real 
sowing  of  dragon's  teeth  that  was  to  bring  forth  a 
redoubtable  harvest. 

Even  after  the  meeting  of  the  States-General  the 
scattering  of  such  seed  had  continued.  Radically-minded 
deputies  of  the  Third  Estate  wrote  incendiary  letters  to 
their  constituents.  These  were  read  aloud  in  pubhc, 
copied,  and  dispersed  into  the  villages  of  the  district.^ 

By  the  middle  of  July  the  tension  had  reached  the 
breaking-point.  The  events  that  followed  show  how 
great  was  the  nervous  strain  upon  the  population.  On 
the   14th  the   Parisians  stormed   the   Bastille  ;    in   the 

^  Dupont,  pp.  19-21. 

*  Cochin  and  Charpcnticr,  La  campagne  electorate  de  lySg  en  Bour- 
gogne.  a  piece  of  royalist  propaganda  which  coatains  interesting  facts. 

•  Taiue,  La  Rivoludon,  vol.  i.  p.  95. 


92    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

weeks  that  followed  the  townspeople  everywhere  carried 
out  a  "  municipal  revolution,"  sweeping  away  the  old 
privileged  governing  bodies  and  substituting  communal 
authorities  more  to  the  public  taste.  At  the  same  time 
there  swept  across  France,  penetrating  even  to  the 
remotest  districts,  that  wave  of  panic  terror  known  in 
history  as  the  Great  Fear.  Everywhere  it  was  said  that 
"  brigands  "  were  marching,  or  that  foreign  enemies — 
Englishmen,  Spaniards,  Savoyards — had  made  invasion. 
Alongside  this  movement,  and  in  part  cause,  part  conse- 
quence of  it,i  there  began  the  first  episode  in  the  war  of 
the  peasants  against  the  feudal  system,  a  war  which 
was  not  to  cease  till  its  last  vestiges  had  been  swept  away 
in  France  and  a  veritable  social  revolution  accomplished. 
Some  writers  have  seen  in  this  movement  a  direct 
consequence  of  the  insurrection  in  Paris. ^  But  this 
version  of  events  is  at  best,  as  Kropotkin  has  pointed 
out,^  only  half  true.  It  is  clear,  for  instance,  that  the 
space  of  time  between  the  events  in  Paris  and  the  out- 
break of  peasant  insurrections  at  certain  places  in  the 
provinces,  was  much  too  short  to  permit  of  the  news  of 
the  fall  of  the  Bastille  having  reached  the  latter.  Arthur 
Young's  evidence  on  this  point  seems  conclusive.  "  For 
what  the  country  knows  to  the  contrary,  their  deputies 
are  in  the  Bastille,  instead  of  the  Bastille  being  razed  ; 
so  the  mob  plunder,  burn  and  destroy,  in  complete 
ignorance."  *  The  theory  that  the  disorders,  as  well 
as  the  great  panic,  were  the  work  of  conspirators  who, 
in  some  miraculous  and  unexplained  manner,  had  en- 
gineered the  whole  movement,  is  also  much  too  simple 
and  convenient  to  be  convincing.  It  is,  indeed,  rejected 
by  those  who  have  most    carefully  studied  the  facts. ^ 

^  Sagnac  and  Caron  (p.  x.  of  Introduction)  say  categorically  that 
"  these  pillagings  engendered  the  Great  Fear  in  almost  the  whole  of 
France."  This  overlooks  the  fact  that  in  some  parts,  e.g.,  Dauphin6, 
the  panic  engendered  the  pillage. 

*  Cf.  Bord,  p.  76.  '  Kropotkin,  p.  95. 

♦  27  July  1789.  *  Cf.  preface  to  Conard's  work. 


THE  FIRST  PEASANT  REVOLT  98 

We  have  to  consider  that  disturbances  had  been  multi- 
plying throughout  the  country  during  the  whole  spring 
of  1789  ;    one  competent  authority  declares  that  more 
than  three  hundred  riots  occurred  in  the  four  months 
which  preceded  the  taking  of  the  Bastille. ^     In  March,  for 
example,  all  Provence  had  been  thrown  into  a  ferment 
by  hunger-riots.     As  early  as  February,  the  peasants  in 
several  districts  of  Dauphine  were  refusing  to  p^iy  the 
feudal  dues,  and  in  April  a  similar  state  of  affairs  was 
reported  to  exist.     On  the  23rd  of  this  latter  month,  the 
peasants  of  Passage  and  Paladru  declared  that  "  for  the 
future  they  would  pay  no  personal  dues  .  .  .  and  that 
the  same  shall  be  signified  to  Madame  the  Vicomtesse  de 
Pons,  lady  of  this  place."     In  May,  the  inhabitants  of 
Omacieux,  who  cherished   a   grudge   of   long  standing 
against  their  seigneur,  refused  to  pay  a  certain  due  unless 
he  produced  "the  primitive  and  original  titles"  which 
gave  him  the  right  to  levy  it.     In  the  beginning  of  June 
the   rumour  ran   at   Cremieu   that    "  the   manor-houses 
ought  to  be  burned  and  plundered."     A  certain  M.  de 
Pusignan,  returning  home  from  the  market  at  Burgoin, 
was  told  by  a  fellow-traveller  of  conversations  heard 
among  peasants  "  which  made  my  hair  stand  on  end. 
They  talked  of  nothing  but  assassinations  and  burnings 
of  chateaux."  2     Passing  to  the  other  extremity  of  the 
realm  we  find  that  it  was  noted  in  Brittany,  towards  the 
middle  of  May,  that  certain  parish  priests  were  stirring 
up  trouble  in  the  rural  districts.     One  of  these  seditious 
ecclesiastics  had  declared  (on  a  Sunday)  that  his  flock 
ought  not  to  acknowledge  or  pay  the  feudal  dues.^    The 
crust  of  habit,  the  bonds  of  social  discipline,  had  clearly 
long  been  weakening  ;    there  is  no  need  to  resort  to  the 
h3'pothesis  of  a  monstrous  conspiracy  to  explain  why 
they  finally  snapped.     The  fact  that  the  first  harvest  had 
been  gathered   in  ;  *    the   state   of  nervous  tension  in 

1  Duchemin,  p.  lo  note.  *  Conard,  pp.  37  and  39. 

»  S6e  and  L6sort,  vol.  i.  p.  Ixiv  note.        *  Cf.  Kropotkin.  p.  no. 


94    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

which  the  population  had  been  hving  for  months,  a  tension 
clearly  proved  by  the  extravagant  character  and  wide- 
spread range  of  the  great  panic  ;  the  rage  and  hatred 
born  of  hope  deferred  ;  these  are  causes  quite  sufficient 
to  explain  the  when  and  why  of  the  first  peasant  risings. 

The  insurrections  fell,  geographically  speaking,  into 
two  main  groups,  an  eastern  and  a  western.  The  pro- 
vinces affected  by  the  first  were  those  frontier  districts 
in  which,  as  we  have  seen,  the  grossest  forms  of  feudal 
oppression  had  survived  :  Alsace,  Franche-Comte,  Bur- 
gundy, the  Maconnais,  Dauphine.  The  provinces  of  the 
second  group  were  western  :  Normandy,  Maine,  Poitou, 
and  Brittany,  but  in  these  the  movement  was  not  so 
violent  or  widespread  as  in  the  east.  Elsewhere,  only 
isolated  disturbances  seem  to  have  taken  place. ^ 

The  first  blow  would  seem  to  have  been  struck  near 
Vesoul,  in  Franche-Comte,  where  the  chateau  of  Sancy, 
belonging  to  the  Princesse  de  Beaufremont,  was  sacked 
on  i6  July. 2  Clearly,  the  news  from  Paris  could  not 
have  travelled  this  distance  in  so  short  a  time.  The  same 
remark  applies  to  the  case  of  the  mainmortahles  of  Sapon- 
court,  who  rose  against  their  ecclesiastical  overlords  of 
Cherlieu  on  the  i8th,  to  be  followed  by  those  of  Purgerot, 
Betancourt,  and  Venisey.^  The  disturbances,  which  con- 
tinued till  the  beginning  of  August  and  caused  infinite 
damage  (in  one  part  of  Franche-Comte  three  out  of  every 
five  manor-houses  were  plundered),*  took  much  the  same 
foim  in  all  parts.  The  main  object  of  the  peasants  was  to 
destroy  the  hated  manor-rolls  which  were  the  charters  of 
their  servitude,  along  with  all  other  documents  which 
seemed  capable  of  bearing  witness  against  them.  Their 
forerunners  in  the  Jacquerie  had  acted  in  a  precisely 

^  Taine,  as  cited,  vol.  i.  p.  97,  includes  Auvergne  among  the  pro- 
vinces affected ;  but  his  references  are  vague,  and  his  statement  is 
contradicted  by  M.  M^ge  in  the  Bulletin  historique  et  scientifique  de 
V Auvergne  for  1900.     I  prefer  the  authority  of  M.  M^ge. 

2  Taine,  as  cited,  vol.  i.  p.  98.  ^  Finot,  1881. 

*  Young,  31  July  1789. 


THE  FIRST  PEASANT  REVOLT  95 

similar  manner  four  centuries  before.  But  a  few  descrip- 
tions of  particular  incidents  will  be  more  enlightening 
than  generalities. 

On    23    July,    the    mainmortahles    of    Montigny,    a 
dependency  of  Cherlieu,   rose   and  invaded  the  abbey 
cloisters.     On  that  day  they  contented  themselves  with 
the  plunder  of  the  archives.     On  the  morrow  they  re- 
turned and  led  the  monks — their  hands  bound  and  with 
ropes  about  their  necks — to  an  open  space  in  the  village. 
There  they  were  forced  to  kneel,  and,  under  the  urgency 
of  the  threats  that  were  heaped  upon  them,  the  brother- 
purveyor  signed,  on  behalf  of  himself  and  the  community, 
a  renunciation  of  the  chief  feudal  rights  of  the  abbey. 
This    document    had    been    drawn    up    by    a    notary 
thoughtfully  provided  by  the  peasants.     Its  preamble 
has    a    certain    grim    humour  which    makes   it  worthy 
of  quotation.      "  Messieurs   the    Prior  and  the    monks, 
desirous  to  satisfy  the  inhabitants  and  community  of 
Montigny,  and  ha\'ing  heard  the  instructions  given  them 
yesterday  at   Cherheu  and  reflected  upon  them,   have 
consented,  accorded,  approved,  and  ratified  to  the  afore- 
said inhabitants,  here  present  and  accepting  the  following, 
to  wit :  "  then  follows  a  list  of  concessions  which  illus- 
trates at  once  the  grievances  and  the  demands  of  the 
peasants.     Put   summarily,  it  runs  as  follows  :    (i)  The 
mainmorie  with  which  the  lands  of  Montigny  are  burdened 
is  abolished  for  ever  ;  (2)  the  dues  on  contracts  of  sale 
and  purchase  [lods  ei  ventes)  are  abohshed,  and  the  in- 
habitants are  to  be  free  to  sell,  buy,  or  ahenate  as  seems 
good  to  them  ;    (3)  tithes  are  abohshed  ;    (4)  the  mono- 
poly of  the  bakehouse  is  done  away  with  ;   (5)  there  is  to 
be  no  hunting  when  the  crops  are  liable  to  damage  ;    (6) 
the  abbey's  gamekeepers    are  to  be  excluded  from  the 
inhabitants'  woods  and  fields,  and  the  latter  alone  are 
to  enjoy  the  right  to  fish  ;   (7)    the  pigeon-cotes  are  to  be 
entirely  destroyed  ;    (8)  any  inhabitant  may  keep  a  dog 
without  muzzUng  it  ;    (9)  the  inhabitants  are  to  be  en- 


96    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

tirely  free  of  all  corvees  ;  (lo)  the  tallage  shall  be  levied 
equitably  ;  (ii)  all  earlier  title-deeds  are  to  be  null  and 
of  no  effect.^ 

Luxeuil,  which,  as  we  have  seen,  was  another  notable 
centre  of  feudal  survivals,  witnessed  scenes  very  similar. 
In  the  morning  of  the  21st  the  alarm-bell  was  rung  in  the 
neighbouring  villages,  and  the  men  of  Maillerancourt, 
Landres,  Vironcourt,  Baudoncourt,  La  Chapelle,  Brotte, 
and  Froide-Couche  marched  upon  the  Benedictine 
abbey,  with  the  village  officers  at  their  head.  They 
were  armed  with  every  variety  of  rural  weapons.  The 
Prior,  Dom  Vautherot,  received  the  leaders  in  the  lower 
court  and  parleyed  with  them.  They  demanded  that 
all  title-deeds  should  be  handed  over  for  destruction  ; 
the  Prior  did  not  refuse,  but  asked  that  a  hst  of  the  docu- 
ments should  be  given  him  in  exchange.  The  waiting 
peasants,  however,  grew  impatient,  battered  in  the 
door  of  the  court  and  invaded  the  abbey  buildings. 
"  The  rioters,"  says  the  historian  of  these  events,  "  swarm 
up  the  staircase  in  the  corner  of  the  court,  empty  some 
shelves  in  the  Hbrary,  throw  down  titles,  registers,  printed 
books  taken  at  random,  steal  the  purveyor's,  cash-box 
containing  twenty  or  thirty  louis,  then  descend  to  the 
kitchen,  break  the  plates  and  fling  themselves  into  the 
cellar,  whence  they  carry  off  several  barrels  of  wine." 
Meanwhile,  a  similar  scene  was  being  enacted  at  the 
Abbot's  palace.  M.  de  Clermont-Tonnerre  was  com- 
pelled to  sign  an  abandonment  of  his  feudal  rights  ; 
whilst  the  rioters  sacked  the  palace  he  escaped  with  his 
hfe  to  Plombieres,  only  to  be  requested  to  depart,  lest 
his  presence  should  create  disturbances  there  also. 2 

Of  the  insurrections  in  Dauphine  we  have  a  very  full 
and  clear  account. ^    The  movement  seems  to  have  been 

ipinot,  1 881. 

2  For  events  at  Luxeuil,  see  Godefroy,  p.  82. 

»  Thanks  to  the  labours  of  M.  Pierre  Conard.     See  his  admirable 
monograph  for  all  that  follows. 


THE  FIRST  PEASANT  REVOLT  97 

the  direct  product  of  the  Great  Fear.  We  have  already 
noticed  the  disturbed  state  of  the  province  in  the  spring 
and  early  summer  ;  when,  on  25  July,  the  rumour 
began  to  spread  that  "  brigands  "  were  ravaging  Franche- 
Comte  and  marching  south  (a  clear  proof  that  in  this 
instance  the  peasant  revolts  were  the  cause  of  the  panic), 
it  fell  like  oil  upon  a  smouldering  fire.  On  the  27th,  a 
day  of  storm  and  rain,  the  story  of  the  "  brigands  " — 
now  transformed  into  a  Sardinian  army,  40,000  strong 
— ran  like  wildfire  through  the  country.  The  alarm- 
bells  rang  in  every  steeple,  scattering  terror  as  far  as 
their  clamour  reached  ;  everywhere  men  hastily  armed 
themselves  with  such  weapons  as  came  to  hand,  and 
formed  themselves  into  rough-and-ready  militias ; 
women  fled  with  their  children  to  the  woods.  Large 
numbers  of  armed  peasants  poured  into  the  towns 
anxious  to  strike  a  blow  in  self-defence  By  nine  o'clock 
in  the  evening,  for  example,  two  thousand  of  them  had 
entered  Bourgoin,  and  thousands  more  arrived  during 
the  night.  When  they  learned,  as  speedily  happened, 
that  they  had  been  deceived  by  a  false  alarm,  their  anger 
and  suspicion  turned  immediately  against  the  nobles. 
Who,  but  these  ancient  enemies  of  the  people,  would 
have  thus  spread  tenor  through  the  countryside  ? 
"  Since  they  had  found  no  enemy,"  the  peasants  de- 
clared, "  they  would  visit  the  nobles,  and  the  priests  who 
supported  them." 

The  threat  was  not  an  idle  one  ;  early  in  the  morning 
of  the  28th  they  marched  out  of  Bourgoin  to  put  their 
programme  into  action.  They  marched  first  to  the 
chateau  of  Domarin,  which  they  sacked  ;  then  to  that 
of  Vaulx,  which  they  fired  and  destroyed.  When  Ver- 
pilliere  and  Layet  had  also  been  ravaged,  many  were 
satisfied  and  returned  to  their  homes  ;  but  others,  more 
determined,  continued  their  march  till  the  30th,  raising 
all  northern  Viennois  against  the  nobles  and  destroying 
the  manor-houses  as  they  went.  We  cannot  describe  their 
7 


98    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

activities  in  detail,  or  stay  to  describe  events  in  other 
parts  of  the  province.  Suffice  it  to  say  that  in  three 
days  some  fifty-seven  chateaux  or  reUgious  houses  were 
attacked  with  varying  degrees  of  violence.  No  Hves, 
however,  were  taken. 

Passing  from  the  East  to  the  West,  we  notice  that  the 
insurrections  bore  much  the  same  character  in  both 
areas.  The  description  of  one  characteristic  episode  will 
suffice  for  our  purposes.  On  27  July,  the  tocsin  was 
rung  in  the  church  of  Sauvagere  (Maine),  and  several 
hundred  armed  peasants  assembled.  They  were  careful 
to  bring  with  them  their  parish  priests  and  a  notary,  thus 
showing  a  very  characteristic  desire  to  "  keep  o'  the 
windy  side  of  the  law."  Fortified  in  this  fashion  by  the 
countenance  of  law  and  of  religion,  they  marched  on 
the  chateau  of  Vaugeois,  their  avowed  intention  being  to 
carve  a  certain  obnoxious  gamekeeper  into  cockades  such 
as  every  patriot  was  then  wearing  !  Fortunately  for 
himself,  however,  the  man  was  not  to  be  found,  and  the 
crowd  turned  its  attention  to  his  master,  M.  de  Montreuil. 
He  was  first  forcibly  compelled  to  sign  a  formal  act  of 
renunciation  of  all  his  rights  and  privileges  over  the 
lands  of  Coulonche  and  Sauvagere.  Then  his  archives 
were  seized  and  destroyed  ;  his  stock  of  provisions  was 
plundered,  and  he  himself  was  obliged  to  disgorge  eighteen 
hundred  livres  in  cash.  (The  greater  part  of  this  sum,  it 
is  fair  to  add,  was  returned  to  him  later.)  The  peasants, 
it  would  seem,  were  not  so  much  inspired  by  personal 
ill-will  against  their  seigneur  as  by  a  determination  to 
have  done  for  ever  with  the  economic  system  he  repre- 
sented. Having  dealt  thus  faithfully  with  Vaugeois,  a 
portion  of  the  band  departed  for  Couterne,  where  the 
programme  was  repeated.  There,  also,  the  archives  were 
burned  and  an  abandonment  of  rights  extracted  from  the 
proprietor.^ 

Returning  from  particular  incidents  to  the  revolt  as 
*  Duchemin,  p.  19  et  seq. 


THE  FIRST  PEASANT  REVOLT  99 

a  whole,  we  may  note  that  it  exhibited  a  feature  common 
to  most  peasant  insurrections,  that  is,  the  circulation  "of 
forged  letters,  or  edicts,  alleged  to  emanate  from  the  '.v 
government,  giving  orders  for  the  work  of  destruction,  fc^- 
In  Alsace,  the  authors  of  these  documents  (whoever  they  ^^ 
may  have  been)  thoughtfully  caused  them  to  be  written 
in  both  French  and  German. ^  "  On  the  29th  [of  July]," 
writes  M.  Conard  of  Dauphine,  "  the  peasants  everywhere 
beUeved  that  the  pillage  was  ordered  by  the  king.  They 
believed  this  the  more  readily  because  they  were  already 
incUned  to  imitate  the  example  set  them.  In  their 
creduHty,  they  very  easily  admitted  that  the  roughly 
printed  placards,  shown  them  by  some  obscure  leaders, 
really  contained  the  expression  of  the  king's  will ;  that 
Louis  XVI  .  .  .  had  taken  the  side  of  the  peasants 
against  their  feudal  oppressors."  ^  At  Hurigny,  in  the 
Maconnais,  a  copperplate  for  printing  these  forgeries 
was  found  in  the  possession  of  one  of  the  peasants  who 
had  taken  part  in  the  disturbances  in  that  district.^ 
We  hear,  also,  of  a  man  in  Dauphine  "  who  had  a  copper 
alphabet  with  which  he  made  printed  placards."  *  It  has 
been  assumed  that  these  incidents  prove  the  existence 
of  a  widespread  and  carefully  organised  conspiracy  ;  but 
they  can,  in  fact,  be  paralleled  in  the  history  of  peasant 
revolts  at  other  times  and  in  other  countries.  As 
Kropotkin  observes,  it  was  an  obvious  method  by  which 
the  more  determined  spirits  among  the  peasants  could 
win  over  the  timid  and  the  waverers.'  It  was  one, 
moreover,  for  which  the  illiteracy  of  the  rural  masses 
gave  ample  scope. 

The  forces  of  law  and  order,  much  shaken  by  recent 
events,  were  everywhere  taken  by  surprise  by  the  revolts, 
and  failed  at  first  to  make  head  against  them.  They 
speedily  rallied,  however,  and  a  work  of  vigorous  repres- 
sion was  taken  in  hand.     The  violence  of  the  peasants 

*  Bord,  pt.  ii.  p.  3.  *  Conard,  p.  82.  ■  Rameau,  pp.  8-9. 

♦  Conard,  p.  82  noto.         •  Kropotkin,  p.  112. 


100     THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

was  met  by  even  greater  violence,  and,  it  must  be  said, 
with  very  much  more  bloodshed.  The  newly-formed 
militia  of  Macon,  for  example,  fell  upon  one  band  of 
incendiaries  at  Hurigny  ;  killed  twenty  of  them  and 
took  fifty  prisoners,  fifteen  of  whom  were  ultimately 
dispatched  on  the  scaffold.^  At  Cluny,  the  loss  of  life 
was  much  heavier,  a  hundred  persons  being  killed. ^  The 
bourgeois  volunteers  of  Lyons,  and  the  militias  of  other 
towns,  were  active  in  Dauphin^,  where,  indeed,  we  are 
told  that  "  the  conflict  between  the  party  of  order  and 
the  canaille  "  resembled  "  a  short  social  war,"  ^  Large 
numbers  of  arrests  were  made  after  the  bands  had  been 
suppressed,  and  these  in  turn  were  followed  up  by  several 
executions,  (A  friend  of  Arthur  Young's  saw  a  peasant 
hanging  from  a  tree  close  by  the  ruins  of  the  chateau  at 
Verpilliere.)  *  One  excited  agent  of  social  order  went  so 
far  as  seriously  to  propose  the  illegal  revival  of  torture 
to  extract  information  as  to  those  who  had  "  formed  the 
plot  of  these  horrible  brigandages  !  "  ^ 

But  even  while  this  work  of  repression  and  vengeance 
was  in  progress,  the  effects  of  these  upheavals  in  the 
depths  of  far-off  provinces  were  being  felt  in  the  capital. 
They  precipitated  a  crisis,  and  compelled  the  National 
Assembly  to  action  which  was  destined  to  have  far- 
reaching  and  revolutionary  results, 

^  Rameau,  pp.  8-9.  *  Kropotkin,  p.  127. 

»  Conard,  p.  in.  *  Young,  26  December  1789. 

•  Conard,  chaps,  iv.  and  v.  passim. 


CHAPTER   IV 

THE  NIGHT  OF  4  AUGUST^ 

THE  uprising  of  the  villages  was,  for  the  leaders 
of  the  Third  Estate  in  the  National  Assembly,  as 
disconcerting  as  it  was  unexpected.  Their  minds 
were  concentrated  on  onej)bject  :  the  organisation  of  a 
constitution,  and  this  sudden  invasion  of  the  economic 
problem  shocked  both  their  ideas  and  their  tempera- 
ments. Steeped  in  legahty,  and  very  respectful  of 
property  rights,  the  aims  of  the  peasants  were  almost  as 
disturbing  as  their  actions.  The  insurrections,  moreover, 
had  produced  a  situation  which  threw  all  their  pro- 
gramme of  action  into  confusion.  Siey^  was  a  typical 
leader  of  the  constitutionahsts,  and  his  attitude  towards 
the  agrarian  problem  may  be  judged  by  his  writings. 
In  the  famous  pamphlet.  What  is  the  Third  Estate  ?  he 
had  made  only  a  passing  reference  to  feudalism  ;  in  his 
suggestions  to  the  electors  he  had  certainly  mentioned 
"  feudal  abuses,"  but  had  included  them  among  the 
matters  which  could  be  postponed  till  after  the  settle- 
ment of  the  constitutional  question.  To  Siey^  and  the 
class  he  represented,  poUtical  reform  was  the  key  to  the 
situation  ;  socjaJ_questions_might  be~  adjourned'  toTan 
indefinite  future. 

But  the  situation  was  critical  and  action  necessary. 
On  3  August,  a  report  describing  the  risings,  and  of 
a  very  alarming  character,  was  read  to  the  Assembly, 

*  For  the  whole  of  this  chapter,  cf.  the  narratives  of  MM.  Sagnac, 
Aulard,  and  Henri  Marion. 


102    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

and  a  draft  dv:claration  submitted  which  censured  the 
peasants-and  affirmed  the  necessity  for  maintaining  the 
feuSaldups. '« "But  this  proposal  met  with  some  opposition, 
so  that  the  discussion  had  to  be  remitted  to  the  following 
day.  On  the  evening  of  the  4th,  Target  presented  a 
resolution  which  was  very  typical  of  the  men  and  the 
ideas  predominant  in  the  Assembly,  It  was  conceived 
in  these  terms  :  "  The  National  Assembly,  considering 
that  whilst  it  is  solely  occupied  with  the  estabUshment 
of  the  happiness  of  the  people  on  the  basis  of  a  free  con- 
stitution, the  disturbances  and  outrages  which  afflict 
different  provinces  are  spreading  alarm  and  inflicting  the 
most  fatal  injury  on  the  sacred  rights  of  property  and 
the  security  of  persons,  .  .  .  Declares,  that  the  ancient 
laws  still  stand  and  ought  to  be  carried  out  till  the 
authorit}'  of  the  Nation  has  abrogated  or  modified  them 
.  .  .  that  all  customarj^  dues  and  charges  ought  to  be 
paid  as  in  the  past  until  the  Assembly  has  otherwise 
ordered."  The  carrying  of  this  motion  would  probably 
have  destroyed  the  Revolution  by  fixing  a  great  gulf 
between  the  Assembly  and  the  rural  masses.  The  situa- 
tion was  saved  by  intervention  from  an  unexpected 
quarter. 

There  had  been  a  discussion  at  the  Breton  Club  on 
the  previous  evening,  when  the  Due  d'Aiguillon,  the 
richest  noble  in  the  realm  and  a  prominent  member  of 
the  liberal  section  of  his  class,  had  determined  to  propose 
the  renunciation  of  their  feudal  rights  by  the  privileged 
orders  in  return  for  a  heavy  indemnity.  His  intention 
came  to  the  ears  of  the  Vicomte  de  Noailles,  the  penniless 
cadet  of  a  famous  house,  who  immediately  made  up  his 
mind  to  supplant  D'Aiguillon.  Accordingly,  on  the 
night  of  the  historic  Fourth,  he  intervened  in  the  dis- 
cussion and  electrified  the  Assembly  by  proposing  a 
composite  resolution  which  would  have  abolished  all 
privileges  in  rnatters  of  Jaxation,  and  declared  the  feudal 
dues  to  be  redeemable  in  money.     Mainmorie.ajid  other 


THE  NIGHT  OF  4  AUGUST  103 

personal  servitudes,  including  the  corvees,  were  to  be 
jibolished  without  compensation.  The  villages,  he  urged, 
were  not  interested  in  constitutions  ;  the  matters  which 
they  had  at  heart  were  the  feudal  rights  and  the  taxes. 
"  These  communities,"  he  said,  "  for  more  than  three 
months  have  seen  their  representatives  occupied  with 
what  we  call,  and  what  is,  in  fact,  the  public  good  ;  but 
to  them  the  pubUc  good  appears  to  be  the  good  that 
they  desire  and  that  they  ardently  wish  to  obtain." 

The  speech  and  motion  were  like  sparks  thrown  into 
a  powder-magazine.  "  On  the  instant,"  says  a  con- 
temporary report,  "  a  generous  sentiment  took  possession 
of  the  souls  of  all  the  privileged  members  and  filled  them 
with  enthusiasm."  If  another  eye-witness  is  to  be 
beheved,  the  excitement  gained  the  pubhc  in  the  galleries 
and  inspired  one  member  of  it  to  break  into  impromtu 
(and  indifferent)  verse  !  Noailles  was  followed  by 
D'Aiguillon,  who  defended  the  insurgent  peasants.  "  We 
must  admit,  gentlemen,"  he  said,  "  that  this  insurrection, 
however  culpable  (for  all  violent  aggression  is  so),  can 
find  its  excuse  in  the  vexations  of  which  he  [the  peasant] 
is  the  victim.  The  proprietors  of  fiefs  and  seigneurial 
lands  are  very  rarely,  it  must  be  said,  guilty  of  the  excesses 
of  which  their  vassals  complain,  but  their  agents  are 
often  pitiless."  His  proposals  were  less  generous  than 
those  of  Noailles,  since  he  desired  that  all  rights  should 
be  redeemed  at  thirty  years'  purchase,  and  that  they 
should  be  "  exactly  levied  and  maintained  as  in  the  past 
until  their  complete  redemption." 

D'Aiguillon  was  succeeded  by  another  speaker  who 
merely  bored  the  Assembly  ;  then  there  appeared  a 
picturesque  figure  which  revived  and  increased  the  excite- 
ment ;  Le  Guen  de  Kerangall  mounted  the  tribune  in 
the  dress  of  a  Breton  peasant.^  "  You  might  have  pre- 
vented the  burnings  of  chateaux,"  he  told  his  colleagues, 
"  if  you  had  been  more  prompt  in  declaring  that  the 

1  He  is  variously  described  as  a  farmer  and  a  cloth-merchant. 


104     THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

terrible  weapons  they  contained,  which  had  tormented 
the  people  for  centuries,  were  to  be  annihilated  by  the 
compulsory  purchase  you  had  ordered.  The  people, 
impatient  to  obtain  justice  and  weary  of  oppression, 
strives  to  destroy  the  title-deeds,  those  monuments  of 
file  barbarism  of  our  forefathers.  Be  just,  gentlemen  ; 
let  them  bring  us  here  those  titles  which  humihate  the 
human  race  by  demanding  that  men  should  be  harnessed 
to  a  cart  like  beasts  of  burden.  Let  them  bring  us  those 
titles  which  compel  men  to  spend  their  nights  beating 
the  marshes  to  prevent  the  frogs  from  troubling  the 
slumbers  of  their  voluptuous  lords.  Which  of  us,  in  this 
enhghtened  age,  would  not  make  an  expiatory  pyre  of 
these  infamous  parchments,  and  would  not  bear  the 
torch  to  make  a  sacrifice  of  them  upon  the  altar  of  the 
public  good  ?  "  He  urged  the  necessity  for  haste  ;  peace 
and  order  would  never  be  restored  till  money  payments, 
redeemable  at  will,  had  been  substituted  for  the  dues. 
Finally,  he  dwelt  upon  the  consideration  which  reappeared 
continually  during  the  next  four  years,  that  is,  the  in- 
ccmfipatibihty  of  the  system  of  agrarian  feudaUsm  with 
the  ideal  of  a  society  of  free  and  equal  citizens.^  "  The 
Rights  of  Man  have  been  held  to  be  the  necessary  pre- 
liminaries to  the  Constitution  ;  they  tend  to  render  men 
free  ;  for  them  to  be  so,  we  must  agree  that  there  shall 
be  only  one  people,  one  free  nation,  one  sovereign  ;  we 
must  agree  to  the  sacrifices  of  feudahsm  necessary  to 
liberty  and  to  a  good  constitution.  Otherwise,  if  there 
exist  rights  of  champart,  chief-rents,  fiscaUties,  registrars, 
and  rights  of  mills,  we  shall  always  see  despotism  and 
the  tyranny  of  aristocracy  ;  society  will  be  unhappy, 
and  we  shall  only  make  good  laws  at  last  by  organising 
ourselves  under  a  code  which  banishes  slavery." 

By  this  time  the  Assembly  was  ready  for  anything, 
even  for  an  absurd  speech  by  a  deputy  who  told  of  a 
seigneur  of  Franche-Comte  "  who  had  the  right  to  kill 
two  of  his  vassals  and  warm  his  homicidal  feet  in  their 


THE  NIGHT  OF  4  AUGUST  105 

blood  when  he  returned  from  hunting  !  "  Noble  after 
noble  rose_  t^_demand  the  destruction  of  jome2rivilege 
oftheir  class.  The  Comte  de  Virieu,  in  a  speech  redolent 
of  the  eighteenth  century,  proposed  the  abohtion  of  the 
execrated  monopoly  of  pigeon-houses.  "The  tender 
Catullus,"  he  said,  "  had  only  a  sparrow  that  he  cherished, 
and  he  sacrificed  it.  As  for  me,  I  have  pigeons  which 
are  my  chief  delight,  but  since  they  are  injurious  to 
agriculture,  I  cheerfully  consent  to  sacrifice  them."  The 
night  wore  on  ;  the  president,  ChapeUer,  began  to  speak 
of  putting  the  motions  to  the  vote,  but  asked  if  any  of 
the  clergy  first  wished  to  be  heard.  Up  to  this  point 
the  members  of  that  order  had  been  conspicuous  by  their 
silence  ;  there  was  no  escape,  however,  and  the  Bishop 
of  Nancy  associated  himself  with  the  attitude  of  the 
nobihty.  The  tide  was  set  running  again  and  more 
renunciations  followed.  The  Bishop  of  Chartres  revenged 
his  order  on  the  nobles  by  proposing  the  abolition  of 
hunting  rights  ;  it  was  accepted,  and  the  Due  du  Chatelet 
riposted  by  a  proposal  that  the  tithes  should  be  turned 
into  money  payments,  redeemable  at  will.  This,  too, 
was  approved,  and  the  discussion  continued  till  the  small 
hours  of  the  morning,  when,  after  deciding  that  a  solemn 
Te  Deum  should  be  sung  to  celebrate  the  occasion,  the 
Assembly  separated.  However  little  it  may  have  under- 
stood the  fact,  it  had  laid  the  axe  to  the  root  of  a  social 
system. 

The  motions  hastily  formulated  in  a  whirl  of  excite- 
ment needed  toHbe"  put  into  shape  and  reduced  to  the 
form  of  decrees.  This  task  was  begun  on  the  5th  and 
completed  on  the  nth.  In  the  interval,  the  ardour  of 
one  section — the  clergy — had  cooled,  and  a  vigorous 
debate  _  raged  around  the  question  of  the_  tithe.  The 
repeal  of  the  original  motion  was  demanded  by  members 
of  the  order — with  disastrous  results  for  themselves  ! 
Buzot,  the  future  chief  of  the  Girondins,  answered  their 
appeal  by  a  declaration  that  the  property  of  the  Church 


106  THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

belonged  by  right  to  the  nation.  We  need  not  consider 
here  the  consequences  of  that  speech,  though  they  formed, 
indeed,  the  most  important  chapter  in  the  history  of  the 
Revolution  ;  we  are  concerned  simply  with  the  fate  of  the 
tithe.  This  was  decided  at  the  sittings  of  the  loth  and 
nth.  Defended  by  Lanjuinais  and  Si^yes,  attacked  by 
Mirabeau,  it  finally  suffered  a  fate  more  radical  than 
that  originally  proposed  for  it.  The  clerg^,  in  truth, 
had  been  guilty  of  a  serious  blunder  in  tactics  ;  they 
had  no  means  of  escape  from  the  dilemma  thrust  upon 
them  by  Ricard.  "  When  the  clergy  rose  with  so  much 
ardour  to  pronounce  in  favour  of  the  suppression  of  the 
feudal  rights,  was  it  merely  to  build  up  their  power  on  the 
ruin  of  other  orders  ?  This  very  natural  suspicion  will 
only  disappear  when  the  people  knows  what  you  are 
willing  to  do  for  it.  Undoubtedly,  you  wished  to  assist 
the  Nation  !  Very  well,  then,  the  redemption  of  the 
tithes  would  only  overburden  it."  The  clergy  could  only 
submit  with  a  good  grace,  and  in  the  person  of  the 
Archbishop  of  Aix,  consent  to  the  total  abolition  of  the 
tithe.  The  work  begun  on  the  night  of  the  4th  was 
finished  ;  it  only  remained  to  appoint  a  committee  to 
deal  with  the  numerous  questions  that  were  bound  to 
arise.     This  was  done  on  12  August. 

Much  subsequent  denunciation  was  heaped  on  the 
Assembly  and  the  liberal  nobles  who  had  urged  it  on 
to  this  "  Saint-Bartholomew  of  property."  Sieyes  and 
Mirabeau  joined  with  discomfited  aristocrats  in  de- 
nouncing and  belittling  the  whole  episode,  which,  accord- 
ing to  some,  had  its  origin  in  the  lowest  motives,  and 
according  to  others  in  mere  sentimentality.  That  there 
was  a  degree  of  truth  in  the  second  of  these  charges  admits 
of  no  doubt  ;  the  first  is  more  open  to  discussion.  It  is 
conceivable,  for  example,  that  D'Aiguillon  and  others 
were  moved  by  a  desire  to  outbid  the  leaders  of  theJThird 
Estate  in  popular  favour  rather  than  by  motives  oj^pure 
pHlanthropy  ;    certainly,  the  whole  conduct  of  Noailles 


THE  NIGHT  OF  4  AUGUST  107 

seems  suspicious.  It  is  difficult,  moreover,  to  suppress 
doubts  as  to  whether  the  nobles  believed  that  by 
making  concessions  to  the  popular  fury  they  would 
the  better  secure  their  property.  Buchez  and  Roux 
urged  long  ago  that  "  the  sacrifices  of  the  night  of 
4  August  were  a  concession  made  to  the  exigencies  of 
the  moment  rather  than  a  voluntary  satisfaction  given 
to  public  opinion."  ^  M.  Aulard  points  out  quite  correctly 
that  had  D'Aiguillon's  original  suggestion  become  law, 
and  all  the  feudal  rights  been  redeemed  at  thirty  years' 
purchase,  the  seigneurs  would  have  been  enriched  by  the 
transaction. 2  As  against  all  this  must  be  put  the  un- 
doubted fact  that  eye-witnesses  of  the  scene  received  an 
impression  of  real  sincerity,  and  it  is  impossible,  indeed, 
even  at  this  distance  of  time,  to  read  some  of  the  speeches 
without  emotion. 

But  what  is  of  more  importance  than  these  speculations 
is  to  consider  the  attitude  of  the  mass  of  the  nobles  and 
of  the  king.  Nothing  can  be  more  certain  than  that  the 
liberal  members  of  the  privileged  class  in  the  Assembly 
wefe~ehtirely  out  of  sympathy  with  their  constituents 
on  this  matter  of  feudalism.  They  did  not  even  repre- 
sent faithfully  the  opinions  of  the  nobles  in  the  Assembly 
itself.  This  is  made  clear  by  a  very  revealing  letter 
written  on  8  August  by  the  deputies  of  the  noblesse  of 
Roussillon  to  their  constituents.  "  It  was  only  a  section, 
and  not  the  whole  of  the  privileged  members,  who  made 
haste  to  speak  in  the  name  of  their  electors,  and  many 
were  silent  ;  several  said  that  they  could  only  make 
personal  sacrifices,  which,  indeed,  they  offered,  but  they 
had  no  power  to  associate  their  electors  with  them."  • 
Events  subsequently  to  be  described  leave  no  doubt  as 
to  the  fact  that  the  nobles  as  a  class,  though  willing  to 
abandon  their  privileges  in  matters  of  taxation,  did  not 

*  Buchez  and  Roux,  vol.  ii.  p.  243.  •  Aulard,  p.  87. 

•  Vidal  (P.),  Htstotre  de  la  Rivolution  dans  Us  PyrirUes-Orientales, 
vol.  i.  p.  65. 


108     THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

in  the  least  desire  to  strip  themselves  of  their  property. 
Nor  was  Louis  XVI  willing  to  assist  in  such  a  process. 
During  the  sitting  of  the  4th,  the  Due  de  Liancourt 
had  hastened  to  inform  him  what  was  on  foot  and  had 
received  an  appreciative  answer.  "  I  approve  every- 
thing that  the  National  Assembly  is  about  to  do  ;  I  rely 
on  its  wisdom  and  enlightenment,  and,  above  all,  on  its 
virtue."  But  the  night  brought  reflection  and  a  change 
of  mind.  The  next  day  the  king  wrote  to  the  Arch- 
bishop of  Aries,  "  I  will  never  consent  to  despoil  my  clergy 
and  noblesse.  ...  I  will  not  give  my  sanction  to  decrees 
which  would  despoil  them,  for  then  the  French  people 
might  some  day  accuse  me  of  injustice  or  weakness.  You 
submit  yourself  to  the  decrees  of  Providence  ;  I  believe 
that  I  do  so  too,  by  not  allowing  myself  to  be  carried 
away  by  the  enthusiasm  which  has  taken  possession  of 
all  the  orders."  Louis  XVI  was  not  remarkable  for  his 
intelligence,  but  he  certainly  understood  his  noblesse 
better  than  the  D'Aiguillons  and  Liancourts. 

This  attitude  made  a  conflict  between  the  Crown  and 
the  Assembly  inevitable.  The  situation  was  difficult, 
for  the  passing  of  the  decrees  had  not  immediately 
restored  order  in  the  provinces.  On  14  August  there 
was  a  serious  anti-feudal  riot  at  Castres,i  and  at  the  end 
of  the  month  conflicts  began  again  in  Dauphine,  this  time 
in  connexion  with  the  tithes.  The  inhabitants  of  Lens- 
Lestang  refused  to  deliver  them  to  the  ctire,  while  those  of 
Chatonnay,  improving  on  this  example,  took  back  from 
the  tithe-farmers  the  sheaves  already  collected.  ^  The 
farmers  of  the  revenues  of  the  Abbey  of  Saint  Victor,  in 
Provence,  wrote  to  the  Assembly  on  16  August  that 
some  of  the  peasants  had  flatly  refused  the  tithes,  others 
had  paid  only  what  they  thought  fit.  The  season  for 
collecting  the  tithe  of  wine  was  approaching  and  it  was 
believed  that   it   would  be  generally  withheld,     "  The 

*  Combes  (A.),  Histoire  de  la  ville  de  Castres,  p.  51. 

*  Conard,  p.  164. 


THE  NIGHT  OF  4  AUGUST  109 

laws  and  the  tribunals  have  no  authority,  the  local  judge 
has  suspended  his  functions,  the  higher  courts  offer  no 
help."  ^    The  fermentation  on  the  same  subject  was  so 
grave  in  Auvergne  that  the  magistrates  of  Riom  thought 
it  necessary  to  circularise  all  the  parish  clergy  in  their 
jurisdiction  and  point  out  that  the  Assembly  had  "  an- 
nounced in  the  most  formal  manner  in  its  decree  that, 
until  the  completion  of  the  plan  upon  w^hich  it  is  engaged, 
the  tithes  will  continue  to  be  levied  according  to  the 
laws  and  in  the  accustomed  manner."  ^     It  was  impera- 
tive, therefore,  that  the  legislative  body  should  act.     On 
12  September  a  number  of  deputies  demanded  that  the 
royal  assent  should  be  given  to  the  decrees  on  the  ground 
that  this  was  the  only  way  to  secure  peace.     Various 
statements  showed  the  amount  of  unrest  that  still  existed 
and  the  resistance  that  was  being  offered  to  the  policy  of 
the  Assembly.     Dupont  declared  that  the  people  of  the 
rural  districts  would  only  beheve  in  the  reality  of  the 
sacrifices  made  by  the  privileged  oiders  when  the  king's 
assent  had  been  given  ;    in  many  places,  said  another 
member,  there  had  been  refusals  to  sing  the  Te  Deum 
ordered  by  the  decree  on  the  ground  that  it  had  no  legal 
effect.     Rewbell  declared  that  in  Alsace  writings  were 
in  circulation  which  declared  that  the  execution  of  the 
decree  was  impossible. ^    The  priests  of  the  baiUiage  of 
Bouzonville    (Lorraine)   wrote   that   many   of   the   local 
seigneurs  were  levying  dues  which  had  been  suppressed 
without  indemnity  as  deriving  from  mainmorte,  and  were 
defending  their  actions  on  the  plea  that  the  Assembly's 
d^ee  had.  novaUciity  since  it  lacked  the  king's  signature.* 
In  spite  of  clerical  opposition,  the  Assembly  ordered  its 
president  to  seek  the  royal  sanction  for  its  resolutions. 

This,  however,  was  not  so  easy  to  obtain.  Louis^d 
not  refuse  his  consent  outright,  but  condescended  to  argue 
the  question.     He  appro  ved^theabohtion  of  mainmorte 

»  Sagnac  and  Caron,  p.  58.  '  Marion,  p.  270. 

»  Sagnac,  j).  93.  *  Sagnac  and  Caron,  p.  <)t. 


110  THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

and  recalled  his  edict  of  1779,  then  went  on  to  criticise 
the  other  dispositions  of  the  decree.  Were  the  various 
personal  dues,  not  humiliating  in  themselves,  also  to  be 
abolished  without  indemnity  ?  What,  too,  was  to 
happen  in  cases  where  such  rights  had  long  since  been 
replaced  by  money  payments  ?  Such  property  rights 
had  existed  for  centuries  ;  were  they  now  suddenly  to  be 
swept  away  ?  If  not,  was  there  not  inconsistency  and 
inequality  ?  Finally,  he  made  a  suggestion  which  would, 
if  adopted,  have  been  sufficient  to  render  any  serious 
scheme  of  agrarian  reform  impossible,  namely,  that  the 
separate  redemption  of  annual  and  casual  dues  should 
not  be  permitted.^  A  connoisseur  in  irony  might  have 
extracted  some  satisfaction  from  the  situation.  A  king 
of  France,  the  last  of  a  long  line  of  inveterate  enemies 
of  feudalism,  had  constituted  himself  its  advocate  and 
defender  !  But  the  Assembly  was  not  in  the  mood  for 
such  subtleties  ;  it  made  a  peremptory  demand  for 
ratification.  Louis  countered  with  an  order  that  the 
resolutions  should  be  published,  which  involved  their 
dispatch  to  all  the  courts  and  administrative  bodies, 
"  a  very  slow  operation,  destined  in  the  minds  of  ministers 
to  prevent  the  execution  of  the  decrees."  ^  The  debate 
might  have  dragged  on  indefinitely,  with  check  and 
counter-check,  but  for  the  intervention  of  the  Parisians, 
Marat  had  already  attacked  the  king  and  the  govern- 
ment for  their  delays,  and  one  of  the  motives  behind 
the  manifestations  of  5  and  6  October  was  the  desire 
to  wrest  a  sanction  for  the  decrees  from  the  reluctant 
monarch.  What  argument  had  not  obtained  was  won 
by  violence.  The  Assembly  ordered  the  distribution  of 
the  decrees  on  the  20th,  and  on  3  November  the  king 
formally  promulgated  them. 

*  Sagnac,  notes  to  p.  94.  •  Ibid.  p.  95. 


CHAPTER    V 

LEGISLATION  AND  INSURRECTION,  1789-90 

PROPERLY  to  understand  the  events  that  have 
now  to  be  described,  the  true  character  of  the 
decrees  passed  between  4  and  11  August  must 
first  be  grasped.  The  wording  of  their  important  clauses 
is  as  follows  : 

(i)  The  National  Assembly  entirely  destroys  the 
feudal  system,  and  decrees  that,  of  the  feudal  rights, 
those  which  are  derived  from  real  or  personal  mainmorte 
and  personal  servitude,  and  those  which  represent  them, 
are  abohshed  without  indemnity ;  all  others  are  declared 
to  beredeemable,  and  the  price  and  method  of  their 
redemption  shall  be  fixed  by  the  National  Assembly, 
Those  of  the  said  rights  which  are  not  suppressed  by  this 
decree  shall,  nevertheless,  continue  to  be  levied  till  their 
reimbursement. 

(2)  The  exclusive  right  to  pigeon-houses  is  abolished  ; 
pigeons  shall  be  shut  up  at  the  periods  fixed  by  the  com- 
munities ;  during  these  times  they  shall  be  regarded  as 
game,  and  any  person  has  the  right  to  kill  them  on  his 
land. 

(3)  The  monopoly  of  hunting-rights  and  open  warrens 
is  similarly  abohshed  ;  every  proprietor  has  the  right  to 
destroy  and  cause  to  be  destroyed,  on  his  own  possessions, 
all  species  of  game.  .  .  . 

(4)  All  feudal  jurisdictions  are  suppressed  without 
indemnity  ;  nevertheless,  their  officers  shall  continue  to 
fulfil  their  functions  till  the  National   Assembly  shall 


112     THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

have  provided  for  the  estabhshment  of  a  new  judicial 
system 

(5)  Tithes  of  all  kinds  and  dues  which  take  the  place 
of  them,  under  whatever  name  they  may  be  known  and 
levied  ...  are  aboUshed.  [The  Assembly  will  consider 
ways  and  means  of  providing  for  the  different  persons 
and  services  at  present  maintained  by  the  tithes.]  How- 
ever, until  such  provision  shall  have  been  made  .  .  .  the 
National  Assembly  orders  that  the  said  tithes  shall  con- 
tinue to  be  levied  according  to  the  laws  and  in  the  custom- 
ary manner.  As  to  other  tithes,  of  whatever  kind  they 
may  be,  they  are  redeemable  in  the  manner  which  shall 
be  decided  by  the  Assembly,  and  until  such  decision  the 
Assembly  orders  that  their  collection  shall  be  continued 
also. 

(6)  All  perpetual  rents,  whether  in  money  or  in  kind, 
whatever  their  character  and  origin,  and  to  whatever 
persons  they  may  be  due  .  .  .  shall  be  redeemable  ; 
the  champarts  of  all  kinds,  and  under  all  names,  are 
equally  redeemable  at  the  rate  to  be  fixed  by  the  Assembly. 
It  is  forbidden  to  create  any  irredeemable  rent  in  the 
future. 

The  second  and  third  of  these  clauses  raised  no  doubts 
or  difficulties  ;  they  were  put  into  operation  immediately 
and  very  thoroughly.  Every  peasant  who  could  lay  hands 
on  a  firearm  of  any  description  promptly  fell  upon  the 
game,  and  there  was  a  vast  hattue  throughout  the  country, 
in  the  course  of  which  the  pigeons  of  many  a  seigneur 
suffered  the  same  fate  as  the  hares  and  rabbits.  Arthur 
Young,  as  he  rode  southward  at  the  end  of  August,  was 
much  "  pestered  with  all  the  mob  of  the  country  shooting  : 
one  would  think  that  every  rusty  gim  in  Provence  is  at 
work,  killing  all  sorts  of  birds  ;  the  shot  has  fallen  five 
or  six  times  in  my  chaise  and  about  my  ears."  ^  The 
spectacle  was  shocking,  indeed,  to  one  brought  up  in 
British  notions  as  to  the  sanctity  of  game ;  but  the  in- 

»  30  August  1789. 


LEGISLATION  AND  INSURRECTION      113 

convenience,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  was  only  temporary, 
and  this  massacre  was  an  easy  solution  of  a  problem. 
Other  difficulties  raised  by  the  decrees  could  not  be 
disposed  of  so  summarily. 

Had  the  National  Assembly  sought  to  create  instead 
of  pacifjing  disturbance,  it  would  not  have  worded  itp. 
decisions  differently.     There  was  a  fatal  ambiguity  in  the 
opening  words  which  declared  the  feudal  system  destroyed 
for  ever,  since  in  the  next  breath  the  greater  part  of  it  was 
maintained  in  existence.     Certainly,  that  existence  was 
to  be  only  temporary,  and  was  to  be  brought  to  an  end  by 
a  scheme  of  purchase  ;  but,  apart  from  the  fact  that  the 
details  of  that  scheme  had  still  to  be  worked  out  (during 
which  operation  there  would  inevitably  be  a  period  of 
harassing  suspense),  men's  minds  had  moved  fast  and  far 
since  the  wild  days  of  July.     A  proposal  which  would 
have  excited  enthusiasm  in  May,   or  even  June,   was 
certain  now  to  be  looked  upon  with  other  eyes.     But 
even  if  this  consideration  could  be  disrcgaided,  and  it  was 
obviously  one  of  vital  importance,  there  were  others  of 
an  equally  troublesome  character.     For  example,  certain 
rights  were   suppressed   without   indemnity  and  others 
maintained  till  they  were  redeemed.  The  division  between 
these  two  categories  was  based  on  character  and  origin ; 
rj^hts  which  imphed,  or  could  be  shown  to  be  derived 
from  a  servile  status,  were  swept  away  ;   all  others  were 
to'  hold  goodT    Theoretically,'' this  distinction  appeared 
to^be  reasonable;    practically,  it  mised  more  problems 
than  it  solved.     How  could  it  be  proved,  for  instance, 
tliat~a~^"articular  rent  was,  or  was   not,  originally  the 
substitute  for  some  servile  charge  ?     Many  of  the  dues 
which  were  being  paid  in  1789  dated  back  to  a  dim  and 
distant  past  ;    even  if  documentary  evidence  as  to  their 
origins  still  existed,  it  was,  for  the  most  part,  in  the  hands 
of  the  seigneurs  who  were  directly  and  vitally  interested 
in  affirming  that  their  rights  belonged  to  one  category 
and  not  to  another.     On  this  capitally  important  question 
8 


114    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

of  proof,  which  affected  the  validity  and  amount  of  the 
dues  as  well  as  their  origin,  the  Assembly  had  made  no 
decision,  though  the  point  had  been  raised,  as  we  have 
seen,  in  certain  of  the  cahiers  of  parishes.  In  short, 
the  more  closely  the  decree  is  examined,  the  more 
apparent  becomes  its  weakness  as  a  piece  of  practical 
legislation. 

It  was  not  long  before  this  weakness  was  manifested 
in  a  drastjc  fashion.  From  the  middle  of  August  onwards 
there  flowed  into  the  Assembly  a  steadily  increasing  tide 
of  questions,  protests,  and  complaints  from  all  manner  of 
bodies  and  individuals.  These  documents  are  of  the 
greatest  interest  and  importance  for  our  inquiry,  and  a 
selection  of  typical  cases  will  serve  to  show  the  nature  of 
the  problems  raised  by  the  August  decrees.  On  20 
August,  for  example,  there  is  a  letter  from  the  Comte  de 
Germiny  ;  at  the  end  of  July  his  chateau  of  Sassy,  near 
Argentan,  had  been  attacked  by  the  local  peasants,  who 
had  carried  off  his  title-deeds  and  burned  them,  in 
addition  to  massacring  his  pigeons.  He  disclaims  any 
intention  of  proceeding  against  the  guilty  parties  though 
he  knows  some  of  them,  but  demands  justice  from  the 
Assembly,  and  that  it  should  devise  some  means  whereby 
his  loss  may  be  made  good.^  The  tenant  of  the  seigneurial 
mill  at  Lindre,  in  Lorraine,  alleges  that  the  vassals  of 
the  surrouiKiing  villages  disregard  their  obligation  to 
bring  corn  to  his  establishment  and  take  it  elsewhere  to 
be  ground.  He  has  carried  the  case  to  the  courts,  which 
have  given  decisions  in  his  favour,  but  without  result. 
He  has  set  guards  to  watch  the  peasants,  but  they  have 
been  chased  and  beaten,  and  have  finally  abandoned  their 
task  owing  to  the  lack  of  support  from  the  municipal 
authorities.  He  demands  rehef  from  the  Assembly,  as  he 
is  being  pressed  for  his  rent  by  the  owner  of  the  mill.^ 
Other  documents  show  the  lords  of  manors  still  oppressing 
their  vassals  and  resisting  the  decrees.  The  communal 
1  Sagnac  and  Caron,  p.  157.  "  Ibid.  p.  41. 


LEGISLATION  AND  INSURRECTION      115 

assembly  of  Loubedat,  in  Gascony,  complains  that  a 
local  seigneur  has  obtained  a  decision  from  the  Parliament 
of  Toulouse,  calling  upon  the  municipality  to  erect  a 
bench  for  him  in  the  parish  church,  "  with  back,  elbow- 
rests,  and  hassock  "  ;  this  decision  "  seems  to  be  dictated 
by  a  spirit  of  aristocracy."  The  inhabitants  have  unani- 
mously agreed  to  refuse  till  the  National  Assembly  has 
given  a  ruling  on  the  point  at  issue. ^  The  inhabitants 
and  municipality  of  Nerac  (Lot  and  Garonne)  write  that 
though  "  the  first  article  of  the  decree  of  4  August  1789 
obviously  abolishes  the  right  of  prelation  or  retrait  .  .  . 
without  indemnity  .  .  .  this  right  is  maintained  by  the 
seigneur,"  the  Due  de  Bouillon.'  The  peasants  of  Vacque- 
ville  (Meurthe)  are  compelled  to  inform  the  Assembly 
that  they  fear  its  most  just  decisions  will  be  eluded  ; 
"  we  suffer  at  this  moment  very  harsh  treatment  on  the 
part  of  the  agent  of  our  seigneur,  the  Bishop  of  Metz." 
The  mayors  of  certain  villages  have  been  condemned  to 
make  up  "  the  rolls  containing  the  number  of  peasants 
and  other  inhabitants,  as  well  as  the  number  of  their 
draught  beasts."  These  rolls  were  formerly  used  as  a 
basis  on  which  to  levy  certain  dues  that  the  complainants 
declare  to  be  of  servile  origin.  They  are  willing,  they 
say,  to  redeem  the  charges  and  to  acquit  them  till  that 
has  been  done ;  but,  "on  his  side,  the  Bishop  of  Metz  ought 
not  to  permit  his  agents,  officers,  and  farmers  to  menace, 
terrify,  and  vex  his  subjects  as  they  do.  Your  decrees 
should  be  as  binding  on  great  lords  as  on  the  meanest 
ci_fizens."*  The  inhabitants  of  Combret  (Loz^rc)  assert 
that  their  ancestors  formerly  enjoyed  the  right  to  fish 
in  the  local  stream,  rendering  an  annual  due  in  return  ; 
"  the  title  has  disappeared  but  we  still  pay,  and  this 
fishing-right  is  prohibited  with  so  nmch  vigour"  that 
certain  of  them  have  been  brought  to  the  verge  of  beggary 
by  the  heavy  fines  inflicted.*     One  Francois  Pied  de  Cocq 

'  Sagnac  and  Caron,  p.  13.  •  I  ('id.  p.  131. 

•  Ibid.  p.  lo.  *  Ibid.  p.  40. 


116    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

alleges  that  he  was  hunting  a  hare  when  he  was  attacked 
by  his  seigneur,  who  knocked  him  down  and  kicked  him  ; 
he  offers  to  prove  this  by  the  testimony  of  forty  witnesses  !  ^ 
On  3  January  1790,  Bouron,  one  of  the  deputies  for 
Poitou,  writes  that  "if  in  some  provinces  the  seigneurs 
complain  that  their  vassals  refuse  to  acquit  the  feudal 
dues,  in  others  the  vassals  cry  out  against  the  rigour  of 
the  seigneurs  because,  in  spite  of  the  suppression  of  the 
feudal  system,  some  of  the  latter  continue  to  hold  their 
assizes,  that  is,  to  demand  .  .  .  declarations  and  aveux 
recognising  all  the  rights  which  have  been  levied  up  till 
this  day.  It  is  just  to  assure  to  the  seigneurs  the  pay- 
ment of  the  unsuppressed  rights  till  these  have  been 
redeemed  ;  but  it  is  no  less  essential  to  the  maintenance 
-^f  +^e  decrees  of  the  National  Assembly  and  of  public 
uillityto  declare  that  the  seigneurs  have  no  longer 
uiic  light  to  hold  assizes,  as  this  right  is  deiived  directly 
from  the  feudal  power  which  we  destroyed  by  the  first 
article  of  the  decree  of  the  4th  August."  ' 

In  certain  cases  the  peasants  raise  the  <^J;^stion  as  to 
the  exhibition  of  titles.  The  municipal  officers  of  Malau- 
coiirraiid  Haucourt(Meuse),  for  instance,  petition  that 
their  seigneur  may  be  instructed  to  com.municate  his 
title-deeds  to  them,  for  "  we  do  not  refuse  to  pay  these 
rights  if  they  are  due,  but  we  wish  to  know  -why  we  pay 
them  and  what  we  ought  to  pay."  ^  In  other  cases 
communities  appeal  to  the  Assembly  for  advice  or  rulings 
upon  disputed  points  arising  from  the  decrees.  The 
municipal  officers  and  inhabitants  of  Grimaucourt 
(Meuse)  represent  that  the  agents  of  the  Comte  de 
Sampigny  have  called  upon  them  to  pay  two  bushels  of 
oats  each  for  the  use  of  the  seigneurial  bakehouse,  and 
a  live  capon  for  the  right  of  watering  their  animals  at  the 
village  brook  which  has  recently  been  cleansed  by  the 
community  at  its  own  expense."     The  petitioners,  fearing 

^  Sagnac  and  Caron,  p.  51.  *  Sagnac,  p.  4I8. 

•  Sagnac  and  Caron,  p.  54. 


LEGISLATION  AND  INSURRECTION      117 

to  fail  in  a  suit  which  might  be  costly  to  them,  "  have  the 
honour  to  recur  to  3'our  enlightenment  and  to  entreat 
you  to  point  out  to  them  the  steps  they  ought  to  take."  ^ 
The  inhabitants  of  Attigny,  in  the  Ardennes,  report  that 
they  have  come  to  an  agreement  with  the  agents  of  their 
seigneur,  the  Archbishop  of  Rheims,  to  defer  to  the 
National  Assembly  the  question  as  to  whether  or  not 
certain  dues  paid  by  them  have  a  servile  origin  ;  an 
ancient  inhabitant  holds  that  such  is  the  case,  but 
only  the  production  of  the  original  titles  can  prove 
it.=» 

By  no  means  all  the  persons  interested  were  willing 
to  adopt  this  moderate  course  and  carry  their  grievances 
before  the  National  Assembly  for  judgment.  We  have 
noted  that  disturbances  had  begun  again  in  the  pro- 
vinces on  the  morrow  of  the  passing  of  the  decree  ; 
from  the  documents  received  by  the  Assembly  and  from 
the  works  of  modern  regional  historians  we  see  that  they 
continued  and  grew  in  number  throughout  the  autumn 
and  winter.  The  peasants  neither  could  nor  w'ould 
understand  anything"  of  the  decree  save  it s^  opening 
words  :  The  National  Assembly  entirely  destroys  the 
feudal  system  If  it  were  destroyed,  why  should  they 
continue  to  pay  the  rents  and  dues  ?  The  country  had 
suffered  from  two  bad  seasons  in  succession  ;  many  of 
the  peasants  had  fallen  into  arrears  with  their  pa\'mcnts. 
Everything  invited  them  to  resistance.  What  M.  Conard 
writes  of  Dauphine  may  be  appUed,  more  or  less,  to  the 
whole  of  France.  "  The  peasants  did  not  resign  them- 
selves to  the  delays  which  the  National  Assembly  wished 
to  impose  upon  them  for  the  redemption  of  the  tithes  and 
rents  ;  they  did  not  always  accept  the  principle.  .  .  . 
The  total  and  immediate  abolition  of  all  feudal  servitudes 
would  alone  have  re-estabUshed  calm  in  the  villages."  ' 
Dauphine,  indeed,  in  spite  of  its  experiences  in  August, 

^  Sagnac,  p.  418.  •  Sagnac  and  Caron,  p.  103. 

'  Conard,  p.  164. 


118    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

showed  itself  irrepressible.  At  the  end  of  September 
the  inhabitants  of  Poet-Sigillat  forced  the  lord  of  the 
manor  to  sell  his  rights  at  a  very  low  price.  In  November, 
the  peasants  of  Gua,  called  upon  to  pay  the  dues  they  owed 
without  delay,  appealed  to  the  Assembly.  "  You  have 
annihilated  the  feudal  system,"  they  wrote,  "  and  we 
are  still  on  the  point  of  being  crushed  by  feudalism." 
They  determined  not  to  pay  a  penny. ^  At  the  begin- 
ning of  January  the  procurators-general  of  the  Estates  of 
Dauphine  called  the  attention  of  the  president  of  the 
National  Assembly  to  the  refusals,  "  in  almost  every  part 
of  the  province,  to  acquit  the  seigneurial  dues  and  rents 
of  whatever  kind  they  may  be.  .  .  .  The  efforts  that  we 
have  made  to  recall  the  communities  to  the  true  sense 
of  the  law,  and  to  the  principles  of  equity,  have  been 
unsuccessful.  Some  of  them  have  even  forcibly  taken 
possession  of  mills  and  bakehouses  which  had  mono- 
polies. ,  .  .  The  fear,  unhappily  too  well  founded,  of 
being  exposed  to  the  violence  which  the  people  permits 
itself  in  these  moments  of  fermentation,  prevehTs  the 
owners  of  feudal  rights  from  appeaUng  to  the  authority 
of  the  courts  ;  they  are  thus  compelled  to  sacrifice  a  part 
of  their  fortunes  to  their  personal  security  and  to  the 
conservation  of  the  rest  of  their  property.  It  conse- 
quently becomes  impossible  for  the  greater  part  of  them 
to  pay  their  taxes?  The  diminution,  and,  for  some,  the 
total  loss  of  their  revenues,  does  not  permit  them  to 
make  the  required  declarations  for  the  patriotic  con- 
tribution." The  letter  concludes  with  a  request  that 
the  Assembly  shmildhasten  to  fix  the  methoHTand  price 
of  redemption.  2  In  January  1790,  the  cathedral  chapter 
or~Riez  complained  bitterly  to  the  authorities  of  the 
Department  of  the  Basses-Alpes  that  its  tithes  were 
being  withheld  from  it.  Since  4  August,  "  a  wind  of 
disorder  has  swept  over  Provence,  a  wind  of  disorder 
and  mutiny  which  displays  itself  by  refusal  to  pay  the 
*  Conard,  pp.  164-5.  *  Sagnac  and  Caron,  p.  73. 


LEGISLATION  AND  INSURRECTION      119 

tithe."  "  At  Oraison  the  tithe  has  only  brought  in  67 
setters  of  grain  instead  of  500  :  deficit,  433."  Other 
villages  had  acted  in  the  same  way,  with  the  result  that 
the  chapter  estimated  its  losses  from  the  withholding  of 
corn  and  wine  at  5200  and  3431  livres  respectively. 
"  How,"  the  chapter  demanded  indignantly,  "  do  you 
expect  fifteen  titular  beneficiaries  and  nine  servants, 
twenty-four  persons  in  all,  to  live  upon  a  revenue  of  8800 
livres  when  they  lack  8600  of  them  ?  "  ^  The  answer 
of  the  Department  is  not,  unfortunately,  on  record. 
At  Heiteren,  in  Upper  Alsace,  troubles  broke  out  again 
in  November.  The  peasants  had  for  some  time  been 
disputing  their  rights  over  certain  woods  with  their  lord  ; 
they  now  threatened  to  burn  his  chateau  and  buildings, 
and  drive  away  his  agent,  if  their  demands  were  not 
immediately  conceded. ^  In  the  same  month,  the  in- 
habitants of  Betancourt  attacked  and  burnt  the  furnace 
which  the  Abbot  of  Cherlieu  had  established  on  their 
lands.  They  had  accused  it  in  their  cahier  of  destroying 
their  woods. ^ 

In  the  middle  of  September,  Brittany  was  in  complete 
disorder.  Local  authorities  in  well-provided  districts 
were  forbidding  the  export  of  giain  beyond  their  limits  ; 
others,  threatened  with  famine,  were  preparing  to  break 
down  this  monopoly  by  force.  The  peasants  began  to 
move  against  the  manor-houses.  On  the  iSth  of  the 
month,  the  governor  of  the  province  wrote  that  he  dared 
not  afford  military  protection  to  the  Comte  de  Ker-Salun 
who  had  fled  from  Quimpcr  and  taken  refuge  on  his 
estate  at  Corquer.  "  I  should  be  afraid,"  he  said,  "  to 
expose  him,  myself,  and  the  province  if  I  had  his  habita- 
tion and  person  guarded  by  a  detachment.  This  useless 
act  of  protection  would  sound  the  tocsin,  would  cause 
it  to  be  said  that  we  wish  to  guard  and  arm  the  aristo- 
crats, and  would  expose  the  chateaux,  wliich  would  be 

1  Viguier,  p.  2go.  »  Hoffman,  vol.  v.  p.  53. 

•Finot.  1 88 1. 


120     THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

defenceless."  ^     At  the  end  of  January  and  the  beginning 
of   February,  there  was  a  whole   series   of  attacks  on 
the  manor-houses.     On  17   January,   at   Campel,  after 
vespers,  certain  persons  "  made  a  list  in  the  cemetery 
of  all  those  who  were  to  go  to  carry  off  the  titles  and 
papers    from    the    chateaux   of    Coetbo,   Boisdenas,  La 
Roche-Cotterelle,   and   La    Chapelle    du    Bouexic ;    one 
named  Jean  Bebiu,  of  the  parish  of  Comblessac,  who 
was  present,  said  that  if  the  lords  of  these  chateaux 
refused  to  renounce  their  feudal  rents,  their  papers  and 
titles  must  be  burned  and  fiie  put  to  the  chateaux  them- 
selves."    Whether   the   whole   of   this   programme   was 
carried  out  is  not  clear  ;  at  La  Chapelle-Bouexic  a  crowd 
of  peasants,  600  strong,  broke  the  furniture,  doors,  and 
windows,    and    carried    off    silver    and    other    objects. 
The  feudal  documents  were  carried  out  into  the  court 
and  entirely""  d^froyed.     On  the  23rd,  300  people  who 
had   previously   pillaged   the   manor-house   of   Bois-au- 
Voyes,  fell  upon  that  of  Loheac  and  sacked  it  ;    at  the 
same  time  they  attacked  the  house  of  the  seigneur's 
bailiff  and  burned  his  papers.     On  the  25th  some  peasants 
presented  themselves  at  La  Driennaye  and  demanded  a 
renunciation  of  the  feudal  rights  ;  two  days  later  the  place 
was  pillaged  and  the  archives  destroyed.     On  the  same 
day  a  renunciation  was  forced  from  the  lord  of  La  Moliere, 
and  on  the  28th  the  proprietor  of  La  Gaudelinaye  was 
compelled  to  promise  to   re-erect   a  bridge  which  had 
recently    been    condemned.     In    all    these    exploits    a 
peasant  of  La  Melattiere,  one  Francois  Vallais,  took  the 
lead,   and   subsequently  suffered  imprisonment   for  his 
activities.     It  is  only  just  to  this  village  Hampden  to 
note  that  he  prevented  the  sacking  of  La  Moliere.     At 
the  end  of  January  or  beginning  of  February  the  chateau 
of  Bassardaine,  in  Saint-Maugan,  was  pillaged,  and  that 
of  La  Chasse  at  Iffendic  was  treated  in  the  same  way  on 
the  7th.     In  this  last  instance  the  rioters  showed  particular 
1  Sagnac,  p.  127. 


LEGISLATION  AND  INSURRECTION      121 

animus  against  the  pigeon-house  ;  the  complaints  on  this 
topic  had  filled  a  long  article  of  their  cahier}  On  the 
loth  the  governor  wrote  to  the  Minister  for  War,  "  What 
inquiets  me  at  the  moment  is  the  insurrection  of  the 
peasants  who  are  pillaging  and  burning  the  chateaux.  .  .  . 
There  is  question  of  forming  a  considerable  detachment 
of  troops  in  some  central  point  of  the  province  which  can 
start  immediately  for  any  place  where  it  may  be  required." 
Three  days  later  he  said  in  another  letter,  "  I  learn  that 
the  detachments  sent  into  the  country  districts  to  dis- 
perse the  brigands  who  pillage  and  burn  the  chateaux 
have  returned  to  Rennes.  However,  the  disorders  con- 
tinue. The  peasants  and  vassals  of  Beuvres,  three 
leagues  from  Bain,  after  having  buined  the  title-deeds, 
have  established  themselves  in  the  manor-house  and 
threaten  to  burn  it  if  other  papers  that  they  declare  have 
been  hidden  are  not  given  up  to  them.  The  proprietor 
demands  assistance  so  that  his  procurator,  who  has  taken 
refuge  at  Rennes,  can  save  the  few  effects  which  remain." 
A  further  letter  of  the  17th  shows  Ploermel  and  Redon 
surrounded  by  "  brigands "  and  bands  of  revolted 
peasants  ;  the  governor  permits  the  municipalities  to 
arm  the  citizens. ^ 

The  eastern  and  western  provinces  had  been  the  two 
storm-centres  of  the  upheaval  in  July  ;  the  ominous  fact 
which  emerged  in  the  autumn  and  winter  of  1789  was 
the  spread  of  The  insurrectionary  movement  to  areas 
unaffected  in  the  summer.  In  the  pro\inces  of  the 
Massif  Central — Quercy,  Perigord,  the  Limousin,  Rouer- 
gue,  and  Auvergnc — the  revolt  was  even  more  serious 
and  widespread  than  that  in  Brittany.  "  In  Auvergnc," 
wrote  the  Comtesse  d'Ambrugeac  on  31  October, 
"  we  suffer  a  thousand  horrors  at   the   hands  of  our 

^  This  account  has  been  pieced  together  from  the  notes  appended 
by  MM.  S6e  and  L6sort  to  pp.  303,  307,  399.  485,  488,  and  493  of  vol. 
iii,  of  their  work. 

'  Sagnac,  pp.  413  and  128. 


122  THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

peasants.  A  whole  village  refuses  to  pay  unless  we 
produce  our  title-deeds  ;  others  wait  the  event  and  do 
not  pay.  If  we  do  not  show  them,  they  will  not  pay  ; 
if  we  do,  they  may  burn  them."  ^  The  dilemma  was 
indeed  a  sharp  one  !  In  the  same  province,  in  February 
1790,  the  Marquis  de  Saluces  was  seized  when  leaving 
church  after  mass,  compelled  to  deliver  up  his  title- 
deeds,  remit  arrears  of  rent,  and  make  other  concessions 
to  his  vassals.  The  chateaux  at  Riom-es-Montagne  and 
Laroquebron  were  devastated  in  the  last  months  of  1789. ^ 
The  situation  in  Perigord,  Quercy,  and  Rouergue  was 
described  by  one  of  the  deputies  of  the  first-named 
province  towards  the  end  of  1789.  "  All  the  peasants 
refuse  to  pay  the  rents,"  he  wrote.  "  They  flock  together, 
organise  coalitions,  and  pass  resolutions  declaring  that 
no  one  shall  pay  rent  ;  if  anyone  wishes  to  do  so,  he  shall 
be  hanged.  They  go  into  the  houses  of  seigneurs,  ecclesi- 
astics, and  other  well-to-do  persons  ;  they  commit  depre- 
dations and  compel  the  return  of  portions  of  rents  which 
have  formerly  been  received."  ^  M.  Georges  Bussiere 
has  devoted  a  large  part  of  his  admirable  study  of  Perigord 
during  the  revolutionary  epoch  to  what  he  cajls  "  the 
rural  revolution"  ;  it  is  perhaps  the  most  detailed  study 
of  a  peasant  insurrection  that  we  possess.  It  was  towards 
the  end  of  1789,  at  the  period  when  the  rents  fell  due, 
that  the  movement  took  on  serious  proportions.  Local 
circumstances  and  the  state  of  men's  minds  made  an  out- 
break inevitable.  The  region,  says  M.  Bussiere,  "  was, 
par  excellence,  the  land  of  feudalism,  a  land  of  huts  and 
chateaux."  ^  The  ideas  of  liberty  and  equality  had 
reached  the  rural  rnasses,  whose  forefathers  had  again 
and  again,  from  the  Middle  Ages  to  the  end  of  the 
seventeenth  century,  risen  against  royal  and  feudal 
tyranny.     They  interpreted  the   Rights  of  Man  in  an 

^  Vaissi^re,  P.  de,  Lettres  d'Aristocrates. 

*  Serres,  vol.  iii.  p.  75.  »  Sagnac  and  Caron,  p.  160. 

*  Bussiere,  p.  234. 


LEGISLATION  AND  INSURRECTION      123 

original  fashion,  as  an  incident  reported  of  the  inhabi- 
tants of  La  Douze,  in  "  Black  Perigord,"  proves.  These 
simple  people  compelled  their  cure  to  leave  open  the  door 
of  the  tabernacle  which  contained  the  sacred  elements, 
in  order,  they  said,  that  "  the  good  God  might  be  free," 
and  adorned  it  with  a  national  cockade  !  ^  At  this 
same  place,  on  30  November,  the  crier  who  announced 
the  collection  of  the  feudal  dues  was  threatened  and 
menaced.  At  La  Cropte,  a  week  later,  after  hearing 
what  the  crier  had  to  say,  the  people  compelled  him  to 
make  a  very  different  announcement,  to  wit,  that  the 
first  man  who  paid  his  rent  should  be  hanged.  From 
merely  refusing  to  pay,  the  peasants  speedily  passed  to 
more  \'igorous  action.  Since  September,  M.  de  Bar, 
seigneur  of  Paulin,  had  been  quarrelling  with  his  vassals  ; 
on  29  November  they  attacked  his  chateau,  burst 
into  the  outbuildings  and  burnt  some  of  the  objects 
they  found  there  ;  then,  by  threats,  compelled  De  Bar 
to  assent  to  their  various  demands.  Some  asked  for  the 
restitution  of  sums  paid  for  lods  et  ventes  ;  another  of  a 
wood  which  he  declared  had  been  illegally  taken  from 
him  ;  another  of  half  a  meadow,  lost  through  the  opera- 
tion of  the  right  of  retraii.  Others,  again,  demanded  the 
abandonment  of  the  feudal  rents  or  the  return  of  con- 
fiscated arms.'^  The  movement  spread  to  the  surrounding 
district,  but  the  authorities  soon  took  steps  to  suppress 
it.  Three  of  the  leaders  were  arrested  and  imprisoned 
at  Sarlat,  only  to  be  released  shortly  after  by  an  armed 
band,  2000  strong.  The  peasants  thrust  Dc  Bar's  nephew 
into  gaol  as  a  substitute  !  ^  In  the  latter  half  of  January, 
the  movement  swept  across  the  whole  province.     The 

*  Biissi^re,  p.  236.  For  an  admirable  description  of  "  Black  Perigord  " 
and  its  peasants,  see  Le  Roy's  well-known  novel,  Jacquou  le  Croquant. 

*  It  is  interesting  to  compare  this  account,  based  on  a  contemporary 
judicial  report,  with  Taine's  version.  "  In  P6rigord,  the  chateau  of 
M.  dc  Bar  is  burnt ;  M.  de  Bar  is  overwhelmed  with  blows."  La  Rivolu- 
tion,  vol.  i.  p.  374. 

*  Bussiire,  pp.  243-31. 


124    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

procedure  was  everywhere  very  similar ;  the  peasants 
began  by  the  planting  of  a  maypole  as  a  symbol  of 
liberty,  then  demanded  the  surrender  of  the  weather- 
cocks which  surmounted  the  chateaux  ancTwere  the  sign 
that  the  owners  had  rights  of  feudal  jurisdiction.  "  The 
maypole  turned  revolutionary,"  says  M.  Bussiere,  "  mani- 
fested in  its  attributes  the  significant  symbolism  of  the 
promised  deliverance  ...  it  remonstrated  with  the 
seigneurs  in  an  original  fashion.  It  recalled  to  them  their 
abusive  methods  of  measuring  and  shifting  the  rents  in 
corn  ;  there  were  hung  upon  it  sieves,  brooms,  corn- 
measures,  the  feathers  of  fowls,  and,  supreme  ornament, 
weather-cocks,  with  which  to  abate  the  pride  of  the 
castellan."  ^  After  this  ritual  came  sterner  work,  the 
manor-houses  were  invaded,  and  the  usual  demands  for 
renunciations  and  repayments  put  forward.  The  lords' 
benches  in  the  churches,  those  material  symbols  of 
inequality,  suffered  severely.  Everywhere  they  were 
dragged  out  and  destroyed  by  fire.  At  Cendrieux,  to 
take  one  instance  out  of  many,  a  local  innkeeper,  Louis 
Chantal,  leader  of  the  popular  party  in  the  National 
Guard  of  the  district,  appeared  outside  the  church  on 
Sunday,  31  January,  with  a  dozen  of  his  men.  To  the 
sound  of  a  drum,  the  offensive  benches  and  the  balustrade 
of  a  chapel  were  removed,  and  an  immense  bonfire  pre- 
ceded the  planting  of  the  maypole.  One  of  the  local 
aristocrats,  who  protested,  was  told  that  this  was  done 
by  the  king's  orders. ^ 

A  correspondence  of  the  time,  pubhshed  by  M.  Caron,^ 
throws  valuable  light  on  this  anti-feudal  movement  in 
Quercy  and  Perigord.  The  letters  were  addressed  to  the 
Marquis  of  Lostanges,  the  grand  seneschal  and  governor 
of  the  former  province,  by  his  agent  at  Saint-Alv^re, 
near  Bergerac,  and  other  eye-witnesses  of  the  rural  revolt 
in  these  two  regions.     The  correspondence  opens  with  a 

^  Bussiere,  p.  260.  *  Ibid.  pp.  280-1. 

*  In  Bulletin  d'histoire  economique  da  la  Revolution,  1912. 


LEGISLATION  AND  INSURRECTION      125 

letter  dated  25  January,  from  the  agent,  Pellissier  de 
la  Batut  ;  "  the  people,"  it  says,  "  refuse  to  recognise 
any  authority.  It  is  impossible  to  convert  them  in  the 
matter  of  the  rents  ;  the  wise  have  paid  them,  but  their 
number  is  very  small  ;  the  others  demand  the  production 
of  the  original  titles.  .  .  .  The  fermentation  is  extreme 
about  Vigan  and  in  all  that  part  of  Quercy.  Your  farmers 
tell  me  that  they  cannot  pay  the  Christmas  term  because 
they  have  received  no  rents."  Then  follows  an  account 
of  the  prison-breaking  at  Sarlat  mentioned  above.  The 
letter  proceeds,  "  the  chateau  of  Repaire  has  been  sacked 
and  pillaged  by  the  inhabitants  of  the  estate,  with  whom 
the  Comte  de  Beaumont  was  at  law.  The  weather-cocks 
were  torn  down,  the  walls  demolished,  the  furniture 
thrown  out  of  the  windows,  and  the  wine  in  the  cellar 
wasted.  From  there  they  went  to  sack  the  chateau  of 
M.  de  Pechembcrt,  because  he  is  the  friend  of  the  Comte, 
and,  in  general,  no  weather-cocks  have  been  left  in  all 
that  part  of  Quercy.  The  seigneurs  who  have  not  been 
attacked  have  fled  to  escape  these  incursions.  I  hope 
this  hatred  of  weather-cocks  will  not  seize  our  people 
of  P6igord."  By  i  February  the  danger  had  drawn 
nearer  ;  the  common  people  were  insulting  the  burgesses 
and  honest  peasants  with  impunity.  They  had  destroj-ed 
the  church  benches  "  on  the  pretext  that  those  who  own 
them  are  no  better  than  those  who  bum  them."  The 
writer  could  mention  twenty  houses  and  chateaux  in  the 
neighbourhood  from  which  the  weather-cocks  have  been 
torn  down,  and  the  people  are  casting  envious  eyes  on 
those  of  Saint-Alvere.  A  postscript  of  the  2nd  announced 
the  breaking  of  the  storm  ;  after  the  first  mass,  all  the 
benches  and  chairs  had  been  dragged  from  the  church 
and  destroyed.  A  "  pathetic  "  sermon  by  the  cure  had 
failed  to  save  them.  The  hated  weather-cocks  had  only 
been  preserved  by  a  promise  to  send  to  Libourne  for 
workmen  to  remove  them. 

A    letter    of    the    same    date    from    Villefranche-de- 


126    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

Rouergue  gives  a  lamentable  picture  of  the  state  of 
Quercy.  The  writer  had  been  commissioned  to  revise 
the  manor-rolls  at  Montpezat  and  La  Bouffie  ;  he  hastens 
now  to  be  the  first  to  inform  the  Marquis  of  the  events  of 
30  January  at  the  former  place.  At  midday  a  band  of 
peasants  had  invaded  the  town  and  sounded  the  alarm- 
bell  to  gather  adherents.  When  reinforced,  they  rushed 
to  the  chateau,  burst  into  the  barns  and  ravaged  them, 
then  broke  down  the  doors  of  the  main  building.  "  Un- 
heard-of crime  !  These  scoundrels,  without  any  respect 
for  your  property,  consummated  their  offence  ;  they 
destroyed,  tore,  spoiled,  annihilated  everything  :  feudal 
acts,  foundations,  family  titles,  charters  and  diplomas, 
the  works  of  several  centuries,  nothing  was  spared.  Their 
rage  and  fury  was  so  extreme  that  they  destroyed,  broke, 
and  threw  from  the  windows  the  coffers  and  presses  of 
your  archives."  From  the  chateau  the  rioters  passed  to 
the  writer's  house  :  a  pistol  shot,  fired  by  one  of  his 
clerks,  only  added  fuel  to  the  flame,  and  he  was  glad  to 
escape  by  a  back  door  and  fly  from  the  town.  Another 
letter,  written  by  an  inhabitant  of  Montpezat,  adds  a 
few  details  to  this  account.  From  it  we  learn  .that  the 
chateau  of  the  Marquis  at  La  Boufhe  had  been  pillaged 
on  the  29th,  that  the  house  of  his  commissioner  had  been 
sacked  and  most  of  the  papers  destroyed,  as  well  as  those 
of  another  of  his  agents. 

A  fresh  letter  from  Saint-Alvere,  of  the  3rd,  tells  of 
disturbance  there.  It  appears  to  have  been  compara- 
tively mild  in  character  ;  the  chateau  was  not  invaded, 
and  the  rioters  were  satisfied  with  the  surrender  of  the 
weather-cocks.  "  Yesterday  they  planted  a  great  tree 
that  they  call  a  maypole  and  attached  to  the  top  of  it  a 
sieve  and  the  measures  for  the  rents,  as  well  as  a  fowl  and 
a  she-cat  to  typify  the  acapte.  .  .  .  They  tore  down 
the  pillory  and  burnt  it.  They  wished  to  remove  your 
coat-of-arms  from  the  fa9ade  of  the  church,  and  some 
of  the  more  violent  wanted  to  do  away  with  those  at  the 


LEGISLATION  AND  INSURRECTION      127 

chateau."  Two  days  later  the  agent  was  able  to  report 
the  restoration  of  peace,  and  the  subsequent  letters  are 
mostly  taken  up  with  the  transquihsation  of  the  country. 

Rural  France  was  clearly  drifting  towards  anarchy,  a 
movement  which,  it  w^as  manifest,  could  only  be  arrested 
by  a  straightforward  and  definite  solution  of  the  problems 
raised,  but  not  settled,  in  the  decree  of  August.  Early  in 
February  the  matter  was  discussed  in  the  Assembly,  and 
Robespierre  appeared  as  the  defender  of  the  peasants. 
The  incident  was  typical  of  the  man  ;  he  spoke  of  "fhe 
people  who  had  burnt  the  chateaux,"  and  was  interrupted 
by  a  cry  of  "  Not  the  people,  but  brigands  !  "  "If  you 
wish,"  answered  the  Incorruptible,  "  I  will  say  the  citizens 
accused  of  ha\dng  burned  the  chateaux."  "  Say 
brigands  !  "  roared  the  Marquis  Foucauld  de  Lardimalie. 
"  I  will  use  nothing  but  the  word  '  men,'  "  replied 
Robespierre,  and  continued  his  discourse.^ 

Foucauld,  however,  was  not  to  be  disposed  of  so  easily. 
A  great  seigneur,  he  felt  that  his  600,000  livres  of  income 
were  in  danger  ;  a  few  days  later  he  was  at  the  tribune, 
demanding  repressions  and  punishments.  •  The  time  had 
gone  by,  he  declared,  for  decrees  and  proclamations  ; 
"  the  means  that  could  formerly  be  employed  with  so 
much  success  will  be  insufficient  if  we  do  not  at  the  same 
time  prove  to  the  people  that  a  public  force  exists  which 
is  capable  of  repressing  the  wicked,  the  disturbers  of  order 
who  prefer  anarchy  to  peace."  The  task  of  restoring 
order  had,  in  fact,  already  been  begun  ;  troops  were 
scouring  the  disturbed  provinces,  dispersing  the  bands 
and  arresting  their  leaders.  On  10  February  a  corre- 
spondent of  the  Marquis  de  Lostanges  wrote  from  Mont- 
pezat  that  the  prisons  of  that  town  were  gorged  with 
brigands  ;  in  most  of  the  villages  the  insurrectionary 
maypoles  were  being  pulled  down.  Severe  punishments 
followed  ;  of  one  band  of  peasants  in  the  Limousin  who 
had  resisted  dispersion,  two  were  hanged,  four  imprisoned, 

*  Bussi^re,  p.  293. 


128     THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

four  others  pilloried  and  flogged.^  But  the  disorders 
were  spread  over  too  wide  an  area  to  be  adequately  dealt 
with  by  measures  of  pohce.  Legislation  was  needed,^nd 
to  this  task  the  National  Assembly  turned. 

The  decrees  of  August  had  created  a  Committee  on 
Feudal  Rights  which  was  to  draft  the  laws  needed  to 
supplement  those  decrees ;  the  Committee  had  not 
been  effectively  constituted  till  9  October,  a  dangerous 
delay  of  nearly  two  months.  Its  members  were  drawn 
from  all  three  orders,  but  from  the  first  it  was  dominated 
by  the  jurists  Tronchet  and  Merlin  de  Douai.  It  was 
the  last-named  who  reported  to  the  Assembly  on  8 
February  and  took  the  lead  in  the  subsequent  discus- 
sions.^  From  24  February  to  15  March,  the  Assembly 
was  engaged  in  passing  a  series  of  decrees  which  were 
combined  into  one  comprehensive  law  on  the  latter  date, 
and  received  the  royal  assent  on  28  March.  It  was 
supplemented  by  a  further  decree,  signed  on  9  May, 
and  the  whole  thus  formed  a  complete  code  of  feudal 
legislation,  which,  in  spite  of  the  inevitable  tedium  of 
the  task,  demands  a  careful  analysis  if  subsequent  events 
are  to  be  understood. 

The  Committee,  followed  by  the  Assembly,  took  the 
decrees  of  August  as  the  basis  of  the  new  law  ;  its  preamble 
even  repeated  the  ambiguous  phrase  as  to  the  complete 
destruction  of  the  feudal  system.  But  even  less  than  its 
predecessor  did  the  new  decree  actually  accomplish  such 
destruction,  since  it  also  went  on  to  divide  the  feudal 
rights  into  two  classes,  one  of  which  was  to  be  abolished 
wrEhout  indemnity,  and  the  other  redeemed  by  a  money 
payment  equal  to  the  capitalised  value  of  the  dues.  The 
conception  on  which  this  distinction  was  based  was  the 

^  Bussiere,  p.  297. 

*  Kropotkin,  p.  200,  says  that  Gr^goire  made  the  report.  His  name, 
however,  does  not  appear  in  the  list  of  members  of  the  Committee  given 
by  MM.  Sagnac  and  Caron  (see  their  note  to  p.  11),  who  distinctly  state 
that  Merlin  discharged  this  office. 


LEGISLATION  AND  INSURRECTION      129 

old  one  ;  in  the  first  class  were  included  personal  rights, 
"  obhging  persons  directly,  legitimate  in  the  troubled 
times  of  the  Middle  Ages  when  the  seigneur  provided 
security  and  work  for  his  vassals,  useless  and  unjust  ever 
since  the  lordship  became  nothing  but  an  inert  and  in- 
jurious organism  "  ;  in  the  second  class  were  the  real 
rights,  "  obhging  persons  only  through  the  intermediary 
of  the  land,  due  from  the  soil  itself  for  the  concession  of 
which  they  had  been  estabhshed,  usually  overlaid  with  a 
seigneurial  form,  but,  in  reahty,  charges  on  the  land."  ^ 
This  division  into  categories  was  the  foundation  of  the 
whole  edifice  of  the  law,  and  affected  every  part  of  it ; 
by  its  rationaUty  the  structure  itself  must  be  judged. 

The  distinction  between  the  two  classes  of  rights  was 
based  on  a  theory  of  their  origin.  "  The  Committee," 
says  M.  Sagnac,  "  wished  to  distinguish  legitimate  rights 
from  those  which  had  been  usurped,  to  suppress  the  latter 
and  maintain  the  former.  .  .  .  The  personal  rights  are 
presumed  to  be  derived  from  exactions  ;  the  real  from 
concessions  of  land."  ^  According  to  this  theory,  some 
men  had  been  enslaved  in  the  dark  ages  of  feudalism  and 
by  violence  compelled  to  submit  to  iniquitous  restrictions 
upon  their  personal  freedom.  The  Declaration  of  the 
Rights  of  Man  called  for  the  abolition  of  these  restrictions, 
and  they  must  disappear  for  ever.  To  others,  or  perhaps 
to  the  same  men  at  a  different  period,  their  lords  had 
conceded  a  portion  of  land,  and  had  charged  it  with 
certain  payments  or  servitudes  in  return.  These  charges 
were  property,  and  since  the  same  Declaration  regarded 
property  as  one  of  "  the  natural  and  imprescriptible 
rights  of  man,"  "  a  sacred  and  inviolable  right,"  of  which 
no  one  could  be  deprived  save  by  due  process  of  law 
and  after  the  payment  of  an  equitable  indemnity,  it 
naturally  followed  that  they  must  be  preserved.  Once 
the  premises  were  accepted,  the  rest  of  the  argument  was 
unshakable,  and  the  distinction  made  by  the  law  entirely 
»  Sagnac,  p.  98,  » Ibid.  pp.  97  and  99. 

9 


ISO    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

legitimate.  "  But,"  as  M.  Sagnac  remarks,  "  this  dis- 
tinction, though  it  proceeded  from  very  praiseworthy 
infentions,  was  impossible  in  practice.  It  was  an 
attempt  to  bring  a  factitious  regularity  out  of  the  irregu- 
larity of  ancient  institutions,  slowly  elaborated  and  trans- 
formed, of  which  the  juridical  rules  had  been  sufficiently 
well  fixed,  but  the  origins  of  which  were  unknown  or 
contested.  The  Committee  began  by  a  chimerical  enter- 
prise. How  was  order  to  be  brought  out  of  what  seemed 
to  defy  order,  harmony  out  of  what  had  been  formed  on  no 
settled  plan,  according  to  the  whim  of  circumstances  ?  "  ^ 
Considered  as  an  historical  statement  of  the  origins  of 
feudalism,  the  theory  of  the  National  Assembly  will  not 
bear  a  moment's  investigation.  The  feudal  rights  dated 
from  an  age  when  the  peasant  had  neither  personal 
liberty  nor  any  true  right  of  property.  The  lods  et  ventes 
were  as  clearly  survivals  of  this  servile  condition  as 
mainmorte  itself.  No  divergence  of  opinion  as  to  the 
origins  of  serfdom  can  alter  this  view,  for  whether  we 
hold  that  the  serf  was  the  direct  descendant  of  the  slave 
of  Roman  times  or  regard  him  as  a  once  free  man, 
brought  low  by  economic  pressure  or  actual  violence, 
the  facts  as  to  his  status  in  the  Middle  Ages  are  not  in 
dispute.  Could  a  mediaeval  lawyer  have  been  trans- 
ported into  the  France  of  1790  and  told  that  Jacques 
Bonhomme,  a  peasant,  was  bound  to  carry  his  corn  to 
the  lord's  mill,  to  perform  so  many  corvees  during  the 
year,  to  pay  rachat  or  acapte  at  each  mutation  of  property, 
and  that  his  land  was  subject  to  champart  and  lods  et 
ventes,  he  would  have  unhesitatingly  proclaimed  him  a 
serf,  and  would  have  been  filled  with  amazement  to  hear 
that  he  was  nothing  of  the  sort,  but  a  free  man.  It 
would  be  unjust  to  reproach  the  legislators  of  the 
Assembly  with  lack  of  the  sound  historical  knowledge 
which  modern  scholarship  has  won  for  us,  though  there 
were  contemporaries  who  did  grasp  the  truth  as  to  these 

^  Sagnac,  p.  98, 


LEGISLATION  AND  INSURRECTION       181 

matters  ;  ^  the  real  charge  against  them  is  that,  bhnded 
to  reaUties  by  a  purely  legal  theory,  they  attempted  to 
reconcile  irreconcilable  things,  and  by  endeavouring  "to 
impose  unity  where  none  was  possible,  caused  infinite 
suffering  and  danger  to  their  country.  The  peasant's 
instinct  was  of  more  avail  in  this  instance  than  the 
learning  of  the  jurists  ;  he  had  grasped  the  fact  that  the 
different  parts  of  the  feudal  system  were  intimately 
connected,  and  that  to  attack  one  was  to  attack  the 
whole.  But  the  lawyers,  nobles,  and  ecclesiastics  who 
made  up  the  bulk  of  the  members  of  the  Assembly  could 
not  and  did  not  take  this  \iew.  Their  task,  as  they 
understood  it,  was  to  satisfy  the  demands  of  the  newly 
enfranchised  rural  masses  with  as  little  damage  as  possible 
to  the  interests  of  those  who  lived  upon  their  labour. 
Armed  with  their  theory  of  the  two  categories  of  feudal 
rights,  they  set  vaUantly  to  work  to  divide  them,  and 
prepare  for  the  suppression  of  some  and  the  redemption 
of  others. 

They  were  confronted  from  the  first  with  the  insur- 
mountable difficulty  of  distinguishing  in  practice  between 
the  real  and  the  personal  charges.  It  was  easy,  for 
instance,  to  decree  that  "  all  honorary  distinctions, 
superiority  and  power  resulting  from  the  feudal  system 
are  abolished.  As  for  those  profitable  rights  which  will 
continue  to  exist  till  they  are  redeemed,  they  are  com- 
pletely assimilated  to  simple  rents  and  charges  upon 
land."  But  it  was  not  so  easy  to  decide  whether  a 
particular  right  fell  within  one  division  or  another.  Let 
us  take  as  an  example  the  case  of  mainmorie.  As  we 
have  seen,  there  were  two  varieties  of  this  servitude  ;  in 
one,  it  was  clearly  personal  and  hereditary-,  and  thus 
offered  no  difficulty.  In  the  other,  it  arose  from  the 
tenure  of  a  particular  holding  ;  the  mainvwrtable  acquired 
his  status  by  reason  of  the  occupation  of  land.  Here, 
a  "  personal "  disability  had  a  "  real "  foundation, 
i  Cf.  th«  document  printed  by  Sagnac  and  Caron,  p.  272. 


132     THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

According  to  strict  logic  this  right  should  have  been 
classified  as  redeemable,  but  the  Assembly,  doubtless 
feeling  itself  bound  by  its  previous  decrees,  decided 
otherwise.  All  descriptions  of  mainmorte  were  definitely 
suppressed,  without  indemnity,  and  the  same  fate  befell 
the  tenures  of  the  Bourbonnais,  Nivernais,  and  Brittany, 
that  is,  bordelage  and  quevaise.  In  one  very  important 
point,  however,  the  new  decree  was  less  generous  than 
the  old.  The  law  of  August  had  abolished,  along  with 
mainmorte,  all  rights  derived  from,  or  representing  it. 
In  cases,  therefore,  where  lords  of  manors  had  enfran- 
chised their  serfs  in  return  for  payments  in  money  or 
kind,  whether  annual  or  casual,  these  payments  were 
suppressed  along  with  the  servitudes  in  which  they  had 
originated.  Such  a  course  was  at  least  logical.  But 
the  Committee  and  the  Assembly  now  took  a  different 
line.  They  argued  that  the  act  of  enfranchisement  had 
abolished  the  original  contract  on  which  the  mainmorte 
had  been  based,  and  the  payment  substituted  for  it  was 
the  result  of  a  fresh  contract  which  had  nothing  in 
common  with  the  old.  It  must  be  regarded  as  the  price 
of  a  concession  of  land,  was  consequently  real  in  its 
character,  and  not  to  be  abolished  save  after  payment 
of  the  legal  indemnity.^  This  was  a  serious  retro- 
gression from  the  spirit  of  the  original  decrees  which 
were  thus  robbed  of  much  of  their  value.  As  M.  Sagnac 
remarks,  the  Assembly  "  only  suppresses  rights  which 
have  almost  everywhere  disappeared ;  it  maintains 
those  which  have  replaced  them  and  are  verj^  widely 
spread."  ^ 

The  lack  of  logic  and  disregard  of  realities  that  dis- 
tinguished the  famous  classification  of  rights  on  which 
the  Assembly  based  all  its  work,  was  particularly  appa- 
rent in  its  decisions  as  to  the  position  of  the  fonner  main- 
mortables.  Along  with  their  peculiar  servitude  these 
pebple'Tiad  been  subjected  to  the  usual  feudal  charges, 
*■  Sagnac,  p.  99  noto.  8  Uid.  p.  100, 


LEGISLATION  AND  INSURRECTION      133 

It  is  perfectly  clear  that  all  these  rights  had  a  common 
origin,  and  that  mainmorte  was  not  different  in  kind 
from  them.  But  the  acceptance  of  this  view  would  have 
ruined  the  whole  legal  edifice  which  the  Assembly  was 
painfully  building  up  ;  it  was  necessary,  therefore,  to 
make  the  fundamental  distinction,  and  the  ex-serf  found 
himself  still  charged  with  all  the  dues  with  which  he  had 
formerly  been  burdened.  In  one  particular  only,  though 
assuredly  an  important  one,  had  his  economic  position 
been  improved. 

Along  with  the  destruction  of  all  the  servile  tenures, 
the  Assembly  decreed  the  aboUtion  without  indemnity  of 
certain  other  feudal  rights.  Here  it  is  not  necessary 
to  follow  its  example  and  draw  up  a  complete  catalogue 
of  all  the  duties  which  were  suppressed  ;  we  need  only 
note  the  more  important.  All  the  feudal  monopoUes, 
including  those  of  mill,  bakehouse,  and  winepress  ;  the 
rights  over  ferries,  fairs,  and  markets,  on  the  transporta- 
tion oT^ale'oT'cbmrnodities,  on  cattle  using  the  roads  of 
the  lordship,  those  which  gave  the  seigneur  an  advantage 
in  the  sale  of  his  wine  or  produce,  were  swept  away. 
With  them  went  retrait  and  prelation,  tallage  at  will, 
tallage  in  the  four  customary  cases,  payments  on  houses 
or  for  the  right  of  residence,  the  charges  for  watch  and 
ward  and  for  mihtary  protection  ;  the  corvees,  the  render- 
ing of  Talth  and  homage,  and,  finally,  "  all  subjections 
which,  by  reason  of  their  nature,  can  be  of  no  real  utihty 
to  the  persons  to  whom  they  are  due."  This  last  pro- 
vision presumably  covered  the  humihating  rights  exacted 
from  newly-married  persons  in  Brittany.  The  assimila- 
tion of  the  dues  which  were  to  remain  to  ordinary  rents 
of  land  had  the  abohtion  of  avei<x  as  a  necessary  conse- 
quence, and  the  owners^  of  fiefs  were  forbidden  to  con- 
tinue the  compilation  of  any  manor-roll  which  had  been 
commenced  before  the  publication  of  the  new  law. 
Lastly,  "  all  privileges,  feudality,  and  nobility  of  proper- 
ties being  destoyed,  the  rights  of  primogeniture  and  of 


184    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

masculinity  in  regard  to  fiefs,  domains,  and  noble  lands, 
and  unequal  partitions  by  reason  of  the  quality  of  persons, 
are  abolished."  This  provision  necessarily  swept  away 
franc-fief  and  the  obstacles  which  it  erected  against  the 
StJquTsftion  of  noble  lands  by  non-noble  persons.  Hence- 
forward, there  was  to  be  only  one  class  of  landed  property 
in  France,  and  the  common  law  in  regard  to  inheritance 
was  to  apply  to  it  without  exception. 

At  first  sight  it  would  appear  that  the  new  decree 
had  made  a  very  considerable  breach  in  the  fabric  of 
agrarian  feudalism.  Some  of  the  most  offensive  and 
vexatious  of  the  rights  which  had  afflicted  the  peasants 
were  declared  aboUshed,  and  the  wholesale  destruction 
of  the  monopolies  apparently  realised  one  of  their  most 
ardent  desires.  But  closer  inspection  shows  that  this 
had  not  really  happened.  We  have  seen  that  the 
Assembly,  under  the  influence  of  its  theory  of  classifica- 
tion according  to  origins,  had  departed  from  its  previous 
decrees  in  the  matter  of  rights  representing  mainmorte  ; 
under  the  same  influence  it  hedged  its  abolitions  about 
.with  exceptions.  The  corvees,  the  rights  of  watch  and 
waFdT  "ofniTIitary  protection, '  the  taxes  on  rtesidence, 
were  only  suppressed  without  indemnity  if  it  could  be 
shown  that  they  did  not  originate  in  a  concession  of  land. 
So  fair  as  the  seigneurial  mills  and  similar  monopolies  were 
concerned,  important  exceptions  to  their  abolition  were 
laid  down.  They  were  to  be  maintained  if  they  could 
be  proved  to  have  been  established  (i)  "  by  a  contract 
entered  into  by  a  community  of  inhabitants  with  a 
person  who  is  not  a  seigneur  "  ;  (2)  "  by  a  contract 
entered  into  by  a  community  of  inhabitants  with  its 
seigneur,  by  which  the  latter  shall  have  granted  to  the 
community  some  advantage  in  addition  to  obliging  him- 
self perpetually  to  maintain  the  mills,  bakehouses  and 
other  objects  of  monopoly  in  a  good  state  "  ;  (3)  "  by 
a  concession  made  by  the  seigneur  to  the  community  of 
inhabitants  of  rights  of  usage  in  his  woods  or  meadows." 


LEGISLATION  AND  INSURRECTION      185 

The  path  was  made  smooth  for  those  lords  who  wished 
to  prove  that  their  rights  were  included  in  one  of  these 
exceptions  to  the  rule  of  abolition.  In  the  absence  of 
the  primitive  and  original  title,  two  recognitions  in  due 
form  of  the  existence  of  the  right,  and  proof  of  its  un- 
interrupted possession  for  forty  years,  were  to  be  sufficient. 
Alljlie  other  feudal  rights  not  included  in  the  above 
list  were  declared  (unless  proof  of  the  contrary  were 
forthcoming)  to  be  "  the  price  of  a  primitive  concession 
of  land,"  and  as  such  were  to  be  purchased  by  those 
who  owed  them.  They  were  to  be  le\'ied  till  such  re- 
demption had  taken  place.  Within  this  category  were 
included  the  most  profitable  rights,  such  as  the  cens, 
champart,  lods  ei  ventes,  terrage,  rachat,  acapte,  and  the 
infeudated  tithes.  Now,  as  we  have  seen,  many  of  these 
rights  were  vigorously  contested,  either  as  to  their  vahdity 
or  amount,  by  the  peasants  ;  they  wished  to  know  why 
they  paid  them  and  what  was  their  true  value  ;  hence  the 
repeated  demands  for  the  production  of  the  original  titles. 
The  Assembly  had  made  it  easy  for  the  seigneurs  to  prove 
tha.t  the  rights  they  owned  did  not  belong  to  the  sup- 
pressed category  ;  it  made  the  task  of  the  debtor  who 
wished  to  show  that  the  dues  he  owed  were  illegal  or 
excessive  correspondingly  hard.  The  onus  of  proving 
usurpation  was  thrown  upon  him,  though  the  title-deeds, 
which  alone  could  be  decisive,  were  almost  always  in 
the  hands  of  the  seigneurs,  if  they  existed  at  all.  The 
appeal,  in  case  of  dispute,  was  to  be  to  the  existing  laws 
and  customs,  that  is,  to  a  jurisprudence  framed  by,  and 
in  the  interest  of  the  feudal  class  !  In  the  regions  where 
the  rule  "  no  land  without  a  lord  "  was  in  force,  "  the 
seigneur,"  says  M.  Kareiew,"  had  no  need  of  titles  to 
support  his  pretensions  to  the  cens  on  all  the  land  included 
in  his  lordship,"  ^  and  these  regions  included  the  greater 
part  of  France.  The  provinces  where  the  "  written  law  " 
held  sway  had  been,  in  theory,  better  off,  since  there  the 

*  Karfeiew,  p.  42. 


136    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

rule  "  no  seigneur  without  a  title  "  was  in  force,  but  the 
effect  of  the  new  decree  was  to  nulUfy  any  advantage 
which  the  peasants  might  have  drawn  from  this  principle. 
The  provisions  of  the  law  amounted,  for  all  practical 
purposes,  to  the  prohibition  of  the  challenging  of  con- 
tested rights.  As  M.  Sagnac  writes,  in  an  illuminating 
passage,  "  Will  the  debtor  ever  be  able  to  prove  that 
he  does  not  owe  ?  The  non-existence  of  an  obligation 
cannot  be  demonstrated  ;  that  is  irrational  and  im- 
possible. Shall  he  attempt  to  prove  violence  and  usurpa- 
tion ?  But  of  violence  it  is  scarcely  possible  to  bring 
anything  but  moral  and  unwritten  proofs,  .  .  .  The 
creditor  alone  has  a  title  ;  it  is  for  him  to  produce  it  ; 
proof  should  be  at  the  charge  of  the  party  who  demands 
payment.  In  vain  the  deputy  Gualtier  de  Biauzet  .  .  . 
demanded  that  it  should  be  for  the  proprietor  of  the 
lordship  to  prove  that  the  dues  had  a  real  origin  ;  Tronchet 
opposed  this  motion,  and  the  Assembly  supported  him. 
Instead  of  attaching  themselves  to  a  principle  which  was 
as  simple  as  it  was  well  founded,  the  members  of  the 
Constituent,  always  starting  from  the  distinction  between 
personal  and  real  rights,  applied  to  the  former  a  different 
rule  from  that  which  regulated  the  latter,  and,  through 
clinging  to  an  entirely  juridical  principle,  ended  in  an  im- 
possibility of  fact.  They  had  promised,  in  1789,  to  reform 
the  whole  agrarian  system  founded  on  the  customary  laws, 
and  it  is  these  customs  that  they  take  as  a  foundation ; 
it  is  the  customary  rules,  always  respectful  of  possession 
and  usurpation  of  fact,  and  not  of  right,  that  they  scrupu- 
lously maintain.  The  old  law  still  weighs  heavily  upon 
the  new.  The  debtor,  not  being  able  to  bring  contrary 
proof,  must  respect  the  possession  of  his  lord,  must 
continue  to  pay  the  cens,  to  carry  a  part  of  his  harvest 
into  the  seigneurial  barns  that  are  often  leagues  from 
his  own  home,  must  quit  his  field  for  several  days  in 
the  year  to  work  upon  his  master's  land."  ^ 

^  Sagnac,  pp.  104-5. 


LEGISLATION  AND  INSURRECTION      18T 

The  Assembly,  in  its  zeal  for  property  rights,  be- 
thought itself  that  the  title-deeds  of  many  seigneurs  had 
been  destroyed  in  the  insurrections  ;  others  had  been 
compelled  to  sign  renunciations  of  their  rights.  To  meet 
these  cases,  it  inserted  clauses  in  the  law  which  permitted 
the  former  to  claim  their  rights  by  proof  of  thirty  years' 
possession  ;  the  latter  could  nullify  the  extorted  acts  by 
appHcation  to  the  courts  within  three  years  of  the  laws 
coming  into  force.  Further,  there  had  been,  as  we  have 
noted,  a  tendency  on  the  part  of  the  communal  authorities 
to  take  the  lead  in  the  war  on  feudalism  ;  they  were  now 
expressly  forbidden  to  issue  any  prohibition  of  the  col- 
lection of  dues.  If  these  were  contested,  the  debtor  must 
prove  his  case  unaided. 

One  other  matter  of  considerable  importance  was 
dealt  with  in  the  new  law — the  question  of  the  common 
lands— and  here  the  Assembly  for  once  showed  itself 
more  generous  than  its  Committee.  The  latter  simply 
proposed  the  abolition  of  the  right  of  triage  for  the  future. 
But  the  problem  of  the  commons  was  particularly  urgent 
in  Artois,  and  Robespierre,  who  was  one  of  the  deputies 
for  that  province,  intervened  with  effect.  "  We  must 
choose,"  he  said,  "  between  the  ordinance  of  1669  and 
eternal  justice.  .  .  .  The  law,  by  ordering  the  restitution 
of  legitimate  property,  will  not  have  a  retrospective,  but 
an  immediate  effect.  I  demand  that  this  restitution 
shall  cover  the  last  forty-six  years."  ^  The  Assembly  re- 
jected the  proposal  of  the  Committee  and  partly  accepted 
that  of  Robespierre.  Not  only  was  the  right  of  triage  as 
estabUshed  by  the  ordinance  of  1669  abolished,  but  "  all 
edicts,  declarations,  decisions  of  the  Council,  and  letters 
patent  issued  during  the  last  thirty  years,  both  in  regard 
to  Flanders  and  Artois  and  to  all  the  other  provinces 
of  the  realm,  which  have  authorised  triage  in  cases  other 
than  those  permitted  by  the  ordinance  of  1669,  shall  be 
of  no  effect,  and  all  judgments  rendered  and  acts  done  in 

^  Sagnac,  p.  102. 


188     THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

consequence  of  them  are  revoked."  The  communities 
were  given  five  years  in  which  to  obtain  the  restitution 
of  their  lost  property.  A  further  article  dealt  with  the 
special  case  of  Lorraine,  Barrois,  and  the  Clermontois, 
where  the  seigneurs  had  been  in  the  habit  of  levying  a  tax 
called  "  third  penny  "  on  the  woods  and  common  lands 
held  by  the  communities  ;  this  charge  was  now  abohshed, 
save  in  cases  where  there  were  only  rights  of  usage  and 
not  of  property.  At  the  same  time,  all  the  decisions  of 
the  Council  and  letters  patent  which  had,  during  the  last 
thirty  years,  deprived  the  inhabitants  of  forests  and 
lands  in  which  they  had  a  right  of  property  or  usage  were 
revoked,  and  the  provision  as  to  obtaining  restitution 
within  five  years  was  applied  in  this  case  also.  These 
clauses  were  the  Assembly's  most  radical  achievement. 

It  was  necessary  to  prepare  a  scheme  for  the  purchase 
of  the  dues  declared  to  be  redeemable,  and  this  was 
accomplished  by  a  supplementary  decree  which  was 
passed  on  3  May,  and  received  the  royal  assent  on 
the  9th,  Disregarding  minor  details  and  considering 
only  its  main  effect,  we  may  note  that  the  Assembly, 
following  once  more  the  lead  of  its  feudal  Committee, 
rejected  any  idea  of  enfranchisement  en  masse ;  it 
rejected,  too,  the  proposal  that  collective  enfranchise- 
ments should  be  carried  out  by  the  village  communities  ; 
the  redemption  of  the  dues  was  to  be  left  to  the  unaided 
resources  of  the  persons  who  owed  them.  For  the 
purposes  of  such  redemption,  the  value  of  the  annual 
dues  was  fixed  at  twenty  times  the  yearly  amount 
if  they  were  paid  in  money,  twenty-five  times  that 
amount  if  they  were  paid  in  corn  or  other  produce. 
Two  important  quahfications  were  attached  to  the 
right  of  enfranchisement.  In  the  first  place,  a  peasant 
whose  land  was  burdened  with  both  regular  and  casual 
obligations  could  not  rid  himself  of  the  first  without 
at  the  same  time  purchasing  the  second.  If  his  holding 
were  charged,  for  example,  with  champari,  r achat,  and 


LEGISLATION  AND  INSURRECTION      189 

lods  et  ventes,  he  was  bound  to  redeem  them  all  in  a 
single  transaction.  In  the  second  place,  where,  as  was 
so  often  the  case,  several  persons  were  collectively 
responsible  for  the  payment  of  a  due  or  rent-charge, 
soUdarity  was  enforced  in  the  matter  of  redemption 
also.  No  individual  could  procure  his  enfranchisement 
apart  from  that  of  the  whole  group. 

It  is  not  too  much  to  say  that,  having  regard  to 
the  economic  and  social  circumstances  of  the  time,  the 
conditions  which  the  Assembly  laid  down  rendered  its 
scheme  of  redemption  by  purchase  a  practical  nullity. 
Let  us,  in  order  that  we  may  clearly  understand  the 
consequences  which  followed  on  its  enactment,  consider 
the  matter  rather  more  closely.  There  is  no  need  to  re- 
peat what  has  already  been  said  as  to  the  initial  injustice 
by  which  the  peasant  was  condemned  to  pay  for  rights 
which  he  believed  to  be  the  illegal  fruit  of  violence  and 
usurpation  ;  that  consideration  was  enough  to  vitiate 
the  whole  scheme  from  the  beginning.  But  the  prac- 
tical details  of  its  operation  were  even  worse.  On  the 
face  of  it,  twenty  years'  purchase  does  not  appear  an 
excessive  price  to  pay  for  relief  from  charges  which  were 
as  burdensome  in  their  incidence  as  they  were  vexa- 
tious in  their  collection.  Yet  the  justice  of  a  price  is 
dependent  on  the  circumstances  of  the  man  who  pays  it. 
Pence  represent  a  greater  sacrifice  to  a  labourer  than  do 
pounds  to  a  millionaire.  Now,  as  has  been  demon- 
strated at  length  in  an  earlier  chapter,  the  economic 
system  under  which  the  peasant  lived  had  worked  to 
deprive  Mm  of  any  reserve  of  capital.  Taxes,  tithes 
and  dues  reduced  him,  most  frequently,  to  the  bare 
level  of  subsistence,  so  that  an  unfavourable  season  was 
sufficient  to  bring  him  to  starvation  and  bankruptcy. 
When,  by  incredible  economies,  he  had  obtained  some 
capital,  it  had  usually  been  sunk,  as  we  have  seen,  in  the 
purchase  of  more  land.  His  efforts  towards  improving 
his  economic  position  were  now  rewarded  by  his  being 


140    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

loaded  with  a  heavier  burden  if  he  desired  to  emancipate 
his  land  and  himself  from  the  yoke  of  agrarian  feudahsm. 
To  tell  such  a  man  that,  if  he  could  accumulate  twenty 
times  the  value  of  his  annual  charges  he  should  be  free, 
was  little  better  than  a  mockery.  The  case,  indeed, 
was  really  worse  than  that.  Actual  money  payments 
were  usually  the  smallest  parts  of  the  peasant's  annual 
rent-charges,  and  by  a  most  unreasonable  provision,  the 
price  of  the  larger  portion  was  fixed  at  twenty-five  times 
its  yearly  value.  This  value,  too,  had  been  tending  to 
increase  for  years  along  with  the  general  rise  in  food 
prices. 

The  other  restrictions  with  which  the  Assembly 
hedged  about  its  scheme  of  purchase  operated  to  pro- 
duce a  similar  effect.  The  peasant  could  not  enfranchise 
himself  from  his  yearly  dues,  the  payment  of  which  was 
certain,  without  at  the  same  time  redeeming  such  casual 
dues  as  the  lods  et  venies,  which  it  was  possible  he  would 
never  need  to  pay  at  all !  The  proposition  has  merely 
to  be  stated  to  show  that  it  originated  in  a  profound 
misunderstanding  of  the  peasant's  habits  of  mind.  The 
psychological  barrier  to  enfranchisement  erected  by 
this  article  was  almost  as  powerful  as  the  economic. 
Nor  did  the  matter  end  there.  The  legislators  had  sup- 
posed another  and  very  probable  case.  The  peasant 
might  be  in  arrears  with  his  dues,  either  because  he  was 
suffering  from  the  poverty  induced  by  the  two  bad 
harvests  of  1788  and  1789,  or  because  he  had  joined  the 
current  of  revolt  in  the  previous  winter  and  had  with- 
held them  of  set  purpose.  The  zeal  of  the  deputies  for 
the  preservation  of  property  rights  was  greater  than  their 
enthusiasm  for  the  emancipation  of  the  masses  ;  they 
added  a  clause  to  the  law  which  made  the  acquittal  of 
arrears  of  rent  a  necessary  part  of  any  act  of  enfranchise- 
ment. It  was  to  place  one  more  obstacle  in  the  peasant's 
path  to  freedom.  They  went  even  farther  ;  the  peasant 
who  had  liberated  his  holding  from  both  annual  and 


LEGISLATION  AND  INSURRECTION      lil 

casual  dues  must,  if  he  desired  to  sell  or  otherwise  dispose 
of  his  land,  wait  for  two  years  or  pay  the  lods  el  ventes  as  if 
the  indemnity  had  not  been  rendered.  Tronchet,  as  the 
mouthpiece  of  the  feudal  Committee,  had  demanded 
that  the  period  should  be  ten  or  at  least  five  years  ; 
but  here,  again,  the  deputies  were  more  moderate  than 
their  leaders.^  The  consequences  of  the  enforcing  of 
collective  purchase  in  the  cases  where  soHdarity  between 
the  debtors  of  feudal  dues  existed  are  so  obvious  as  to 
need  but  Uttle  explanation.  Just  as  the  poverty  or  bad 
faith  of  any  member  of  the  debtor  group  had  led  under 
the  old  system  to  the  overburdening  of  his  fellows,  so 
now  if  one  man  were  unable  or  unwilling  to  release 
himself,  he  compelled  the  rest  to  remain  economically 
enslaved.  The  peasants  in  their  cahiers  had  called 
the  practice  of  sohdarity  "  a  barbarous  custom";  the 
National  Assembly,  in  its  wisdom,  decreed  that  the  bar- 
barity should  remain. 

WTiat  would  have  occurred  if  the  Assembly's  scheme 
had  been  tried  under  the  normal  circumstances  which  it 
presupposed  is  fairly  clear.  That  section  of  the  peasantry 
which,  by  reason  of  its  easy  access  to  markets,  its  pos- 
session of  superior  land,  or  of  some  source  of  income 
additional  to  agriculture,  had  more  chance  of  collecting 
a  reserve  of  capital,  would  have  enfranchised  itself.  The 
gC£at  mass  would  have  remained  under  the  feudal  yoke, 
or,  driven  on  by  land-iiunger,  have  tried  to  borrow 
the  price^of  its  freedom,  and  would  thus  have  fallen  into 
the  clutches  of  the  village  money-lender.  That  scourge 
of  all  peasant  communities  was  active  in  eighteenth- 
century  France,  despite  all  anti-usury  laws,  and  the 
result  of  his  ministrations  would  have  been  the  descent 
of  an  ever-increasing  proportion  of  the  cultivator  class 
into  the  abyss  of  debtjslavery.  Then  would  have 
followed  the  sale  ^oTThe  abandonment  of  the  land,  the 
growth  of  a  nir^proletariat  at  one^nd^f_the  social  scale, 

'  »  S*gnac,  p.  Il8, 


141     THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

and  of  a  ipeasant,  bourgeoisie  3.t  the  other.  The  germs 
of  such  classes  already  existed,  and  in  two  generations 
the  peasant  democracy  which  is  the  kernel  of  modern 
France  would  have  become  an  impossibility.  That  this 
is  not  merely  an  hypothesis  is  shown  by  what  actually 
happened  during  the  Revolution  in  regard  to  the  sale 
of  the  lands  of  the  Church  and  the  emigrated  nobles. 
It  was  in  such  districts  as  the  Beaujolais,  where  the 
peasants  added  to  their  incomes  by  manufacture,  that 
they  were  able  to  make  the  most  complete  conquest  of 
the  soil  thus  put  at  their  disposal.^ 

Neither  the  ecclesiastical  tithes  nor,  the  feudal  juris- 
dictions were  dealt  with  in  the  laws  of  March  and  May 
1790.  In  order  to  complete  this  account  of  the  National 
Assembly's  legislation,  its  action  in  regard  to  these  two 
questions  must  be  briefly  described,  even  at  some  sacri- 
fice of  strict  chronological  order. 

A  discussion  in  the  National  Assembly  as  to  the  fate 
of  the  tithe  was  opened  in  September  1789.  When,  on 
the  24th,  Necker  gave  an  alarming  report  on  the  state 
of  the  national  finances,  Dupont  de  Nemours  seized  the 
opportunity  to  demand  that,  for  the  policy  of  abolition 
laid  down  in  the  August  decree,  should  be  substituted 
one  of  redemption.  This  would  avoid  a  new  and  heavy 
charge  on  the  revenues  and  would  be  less  injurious  to  the 
interests  of  the  clergy.  Dupont's  speech  was  an  able 
one,  but  it  is  hardly  strange  that  he  failed  to  convince 
his  audience.  The  Assembly  was  naturally  loath  to  return 
upon  its  previous  decision  ;  it  was  already  committed 
to  a  scheme  of  redemption  of  the  feudal  dues,  and  to 
organise  two  such  schemes  side  by  side  was  to  invite 
failure.  In  any  case,  its  attention  was  speedily  drawn 
to  more  urgent  matters ;  the  days  of  5  and  6 
October  intervened,  and  on  the  loth  Talleyrand  made 
his  historic  motion  for  the  sale  of  Church  property  to 
meet  the  needs  of  the  nation.  The  Bishop  of  Aufun 
1  Vermale,  p.  124  ct  seq. 


LEGISLATION  AND  INSURRECTION      148 

proposed  that  the  tithe  should  either  be  collected  by  the 
State  till  it  could  be  completely  aboUshed,  or  that  three- 
quarters  of  it  should  be  suppressed  at  once  and  the 
remaining  quarter  redeemed.  Neither  of  these  expedients 
was  adopted,  since  the  Assembly  was  too  much  occupied 
with  the  main  question  of  the  Church  lands,  and  it  was 
not  till  after  the  decree  on  the  feudal  dues  had  been 
disposed  of  that  the  question  of  the  tithes  was  raised 
again.  On  27  March  it  was  proposed  that  a  committee 
should  be  set  up  to  prepare  a  scheme  of  legislation  ;  this 
was  accepted,  and  twelve  days  later  a  report  was  presented. 
Chasset,  the  spokesman  of  the  Committee,  a  deputy 
of  the  Beaujolais,  had  supported  the  suppression  of  the 
tithe  during  the  discussions  of  August,  and  the  proposals 
he  was  charged  to  put  forsvard  were,  on  the  whole,  in  line 
with  previous  decisions  of  the  Assembly.  He  urged  that 
the  tithe  should  continue  to  be  levied  until  i  January 
1791  ;  that  it  should  then  be  suppressed  without  in- 
demnity, since  a  scheme  of  purchase  would  present  too 
many  practical  difficulties,  and  that  the  salaries  of  the 
clergy,  together  with  the  cost  of  erecting  and  maintaining 
the  churches,  should  became  pubhc  charges. 

The  discussion  on  this  project  went  on  from  11 
to  20  April,  when  the  decree  was  finally  passed. 
Chasset's  scheme  roused  violent  opposition,  especially 
among  the  higher  clergy,  and  was  carried  with  difficulty. 
Nevertheless,  the  Committee  finally  triumphed,  and  the 
decree  received  the  royal  assent  on  22  April.  Many  of 
its  clauses  were  concerned  with  matters  of  detail  which 
need  not  detain  us  ;  for  our  purposes,  the  essential  article 
is  the  third,  which  reads  as  follows  : 

"  The  tithes  of  all  descriptions,  abolished  by  Article  V 
of  the  decree  of  4  August  last,  together  with  the  rights 
and  dues  which  take  the  place  of  them,  mentioned  in 
the  said  decree,  as  also  the  infeudated  tithes  belonging 
to  lay  persons  for  which  an  indemnity  shall  be  accorded 
19  the  proprietors  by  the  pubhc  Treasury,  shall  all  cease 


144     THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

to  be  levied  as  from  i  January  1791  ;  those  who  owe 
them,  however,  shall  be  required  to  pay  them  for  the 
first  year  to  whomsoever  has  the  right  to  receive  them." 

The   tithes  were  thus  definitely   to  disappear  from 
French  soil. 

One  point  in  this  article  demands  closer  attention, 
that,  namely,  which  relates  to  the  infeudated  tithes.  It 
will  be  remembered  that  in  March  they  had  been  included 
among  the  feudal  dues  which  were  to  be  redeemed  by 
those  who  owed  them  ;  the  new  law  declared  that  they 
were  to  be  purchased  by  the  State.  The  legislators,  in 
fact,  had  involved  themselves  in  considerable  confusion 
in  regard  to  these  dues.  Merlin  and  the  feudal  Committee 
had  considered  them  as  representative  of  the  price  of  a 
concession  of  land,  a  view  which  was,  of  course,  quite  un- 
reasonable. They  were,  for  the  most  part,  ecclesiastical 
in  origin,  and  had  usually  found  their  way  into  secular 
hands  by  dubious  means.  As  M.  Marion  remarks,  "  they 
owed  their  existence  to  abuses  or  violations  of  the  law,"  ^ 
and  had  been  the  subject  of  numerous  protests  by  the 
Church  in  the  Middle  Ages.  On  the  other  hand,  certain 
of  these  tithes  were  simply  champarts  or  terrag^s  to  which 
an  ecclesiastical  title  had  been  given,  possibly,  M.  Marion 
suggests,  to  make  their  collection  easier  by  giving  them 
a  religious  appearance  and  thus  impressing  the  peasants." 
The  confusion  was  only  removed  in  October  1790,  when 
Chasset  proposed  a  decree  (finally  passed  on  the  23rd) 
which  dealt  incidentally  with  this  variety  of  tithes. 
This  law  made  a  proper  distinction  between  the  two 
types  of  infeudated  tithes  ;  those  which  had  an  ecclesi- 
astical origin  were  to  be  redeemed  by  the  State,  while 
those  which  were,  in  reality,  only  disguised  feudal  dues, 
were  to  be  redeemed  by  those  who  owed  them,  on  the 
lines  of  the  decree  of  May. 

The    feudal    jurisdictions    had   bt-^ji    abolished    in 
principle  by  the  decree  of  August,  but  t|ieir  officers  were 
i  Marion,  Dime  eccUsiasii^ue,  p.  29(>,  »  Ibid.  p.  303. 


LEGISLATION  AND  INSURRECTION      145 

maintained  in  their  functions  "  till  the  National  As- 
sembly shall  have  provided  for  the  estabUshment  of  a 
new  judicial  system."  This  new  system  was  not  set 
up  till  i6  August  1790,  when  the  decree  of  that  date 
provided  for  judges  elected  by  the  people  and  paid  by 
the  State.  A  further  decree  of  6  September  1790 
finally  suppressed  all  the  old  tribunals.^ 

To  do  justice  to  the  feudal  legislation  of  the  National 
Assembly  is  not  easy.  We  can  realise  its  errors  and  their 
consequences  much  better  than  its  difficulties.  It  was 
striving,  against  very  heavy  odds,  to  bring  order  and 
system  into  the  legalised  anarchy  of  the  old  regime.  It 
had  to  count  with  the  secret  hostility  of  the  Court  and  the 
open  opposition  of  most  members  of  the  privileged  orders. 
The  deputies,  in  tlie  nature  of  the  case,  lacked  legislative 
experience.  But  when  all  allowances  have  been  made, 
it  must  be  said  that  the  Assembly  erred  grievously  and 
in  the  worst  possible  way.  It  was  dominated  by  a  spirit 
of  system,  and  that  system  drew  too  much  of  its  inspira- 
tion from  the  social  and  pohtical  order  it  was  intended 
to  replace.  When  the  Assembly  should  have  been  most 
cautious  and  conservative,  it  was  violent  and  radical ; 
when  everything  called  for  vigorous,  clear-cut  decisions, 
it  was  compromising  and  even  reactionary.  It  might 
easily  have  won  the  great  mass  of  the  rural  clergy  over 
to  the  Revolution  ;  it  antagonised  them  by  the  monstrous 
and  iUiberal  Civil  Constitution  of  the  Clergy.  Instead 
of  utihsing  the  strong  and  deep-rooted  provincial  patriot- 
ism of  the  people  to  put  vitahty  into  a  democratic  system 
of  local  government,  it  organised  the  entirely  artificial 
scheme  of  Departments,  which  led  inevitably  to  apathy 
ahd~  bureaucratic  centrahsation,  and  has  hung  like  a 
dead  weight  about  the  neck  of  France  ever  since.  It 
formulated  a  philosophy  and  a  programme  for  liberal 
democracy  in  the  Declaration  of  the  Rights  of  Man  and 
the  Citizen  ;  it  contradicted  that  philosophy  and  betrayed 

•  Cahen  and  Guyot,  pp.  178-841 

le 


146    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

that  programme  by  the  constitutional  law  which  set  up 
a  privileged  class  of  "  active  citizens,"  who  alone  enjoyed 
political  rights.  It  was  indulgent  when  the  property 
of  nobles  was  at  stake,  harsh  and  uncompromising  when 
that  of  poor  peasants  was  in  question.  It  proclaimed 
the  aboUtion  of  feudalism,  and  then  reconstructed  the 
edifice  it  had  pretended  to  overthrow.  The  consequences 
of  that  fatal  compromise  must  form  the  subject-matter 
of  our  next  chapter. 


CHAPTER   VI 
THE  RURAL  REVOLUTION,  1790-1 

"  '1^  "TEVER,"  says  M.  Sagnac,  "  have  laws  let  loose 
^^  more  lively  indignation."  ^  It  is,  indeed,  no  ex- 
X.  ^  aggeration  to  say  that  the  decrees  of  March  and 
May  carried  consternation  into  every  quarter  of  France. 
There  was  no  longer  room  for  doubt  or  hope  ;  thejmidal 
system  was  not  to  be  abqUshed,  it  had  even  been  fortified 
by  the  removal  of  its  most  glaring  anomaUes.  Once 
more  a  steady  stream  of  protests  began  to  flow  in  to  the 
National  Assembly  and  its  feudal  Committee ;  once 
more  class-warfare  broke  out  in  the  villages  as  the  seig- 
neurs or  their  agents  strove  to  enforce  their  threatened 
rights  and  the  peasants  strove  to  destroy  them.  It  will 
assist  our  comprehension  of  events  if,  disregarding  strict 
chronology,  we  discuss  these  three  movements  separately. 
Let  us  begin  with  the  criticisms  of  its  legislation  which 
rained  upon  the  Assembly  from  the  rural  districts. 

AU  these  documents  have  a  similar  tale  to  tell,  a  tale 
of  disillusionment  and  consternation.  The  new  laws 
have  not  brought  emancipation  nearer,  they  have  even 
made  it_  inippssible.  The  peasants  cannot  hope  to 
re3eem  their  lands,  so  harsh  are  the  conditions  which 
have  been  attached  to  that  process.  Moreover  (and  the 
communities  proceed  to  prove  their  case  figures  in  hand), 
if  the  indemnities  were  paid  on  the  basis  laid  down  in  the 
May  decree,  the  lords  would  not  be  merely  compensated 
but  positively  enriched.     If  emancipation  is  to  become 

*  Sagnac,  p.  121. 

>47 


148    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

a  reality  and  not  remain  a  pious  aspiration,  the  purchase 
terms  must  be  modified  ;  the  peasants  must  be  allowed 
to  redeem  the  annual  apart  from  the  casual  rights  ; 
solidarity  must  be  abolished.  But  it  will  be  best  to  let 
the  villages  speak  for  themselves.  On  8  May  "  the 
poor  peasants  and  cultivators  of  the  province  of  the 
Haute-Marche  "  represent  that  they  had  hoped  to  enjoy 
some  improvement  in  their  lot  as  the  result  of  the  work 
of  regeneration  undertaken  by  the  Assembly.  "  But 
the  hopes  of  the  petitioners  will  be  without  result  if  the 
august  Assembly  does  not  lend  them  a  helping  hand, 
for  they  perceive  that  neithei  they  nor  their  children  will 
ever  enjoy  this  great  liberty,  but  will  remain  eternally 
under  the  yoke  of  the  feudal  system."  It  is  true  that 
they  are  permitted  to  emancipate  themselves,  but  the 
indemnities  and  dues  on  mutation  are  so  heavy  that 
they  could  not  hope  to  do  this  even  if  the  decree  had  not 
maintained  solidarity.  "The  petitioners  supphcate the 
august  Assembly  to  have  the  charity  to  moderate  not 
only  the  price  of  the  dues  in  kind,  but  also  the  casual 
charges  .  .  .  also  to  authorise  each  individual  to  redeem 
himself  even  if  others  cannot  do  so."  ^ 

We  possess  no  less  than  four  documents  emanating 
from  different  municipalities  in  Dauphin^,  all  enforcing 
similar  points.  The  communal  councillors  of  Thuellius 
declare  that  "  the  decrees  of  the  National  Assembly 
.  ,  .  regarding  the  feudal  rights  have  thrown  them  into 
the  greatest  consternation."  The  average  price  of  grain 
during  the  ten  preceding  years  has  been  taken  as  a  basis 
for  calculating  the  capital  value  of  the  feudal  rights  ;  in 
some  of  those  years  the  price  was  excessive,  with  the 
result  that  "  not  only  is  redemption  impossible  for  poor 
proprietors,  but  it  would  be  so  disadvantageous  for  all 
that  even  the  most  easy  in  circumstances  would  not  take 
advantage  of  it.  Thus,  of  all  the  benefits  conferred  by 
the  National  Assembly,  that  which  is  the  greatest,  the 

'  Sagnac  and  Caron,  p.  a|o. 


THE  RURAL  REVOLUTION,  1790-1        149 

most  precious,  the  most  necessary  to  liberty  (with  which 
the  maintenance  of  the  manorial  dues,  those  cruel  sur- 
vivals of  the  feudal  system,  is  incompatible),  will  be 
absolutely  nullified,  and  the  people's  dearest  hope  will 
have  been  nothing  but  a  vain  illusion,"  This  contention 
is  proved  by  a  statement  of  prices.  On  the  basis  fixed 
by  the  decree,  the  capital  value  of  a  hichet  of  wheat  would 
be  105  livres  ;  this  does  not  include  the  casual  dues. 
Now,  judging  by  actual  sales  of  land  in  the  district,  the 
real  capital  value  is  between  60  and  80  livres,  in  which 
sum  the  price  of  the  casual  dues  is  included.  "  There 
is  not  a  proprietor  of  rents  who  would  not  have  regarded 
himself  as  making  an  advantageous  speculation  if  he  had 
sold  his  land,  along  with  the  casual  rights,  at  70  or  even 
65  livres  the  hichet."  The  municipality  swears  to  respect 
the  decrees  of  the  Assembly  and  cause  them  to  be  re- 
spected, "  nevertheless,  the  universal  disquiet  spread 
among  the  people,  the  interests  both  of  proprietors  of 
rents  and  those  who  owe  them,  the  pubHc  tranquillity," 
make  it  essential  that  it  should  beg  the  legislature  to 
moderate  the  price  of  redemption.^  The  communal 
council  of  Montferrat  makes  a  similar  calculation  ;  it 
works  out  the  cost  of  the  indemnity  at  the  same  figure 
as  that  given  for  Thuelhus,  and  calculates  that  this  would 
be  more  than  half  as  much  again  as  the  just  price  of  the 
dues  !  The  council,  again  following  the  example  of 
Thuellius,  contrasts  this  impracticable  proposal  with 
the  arrangement  made  in  the  neighbouring  Duchy  of 
Savoy,  where  the  amount  of  the  indemnity  for  the  feudal 
dues  was  fixed  at  68  livres  for  the  quartel  of  wheat  in- 
stead of  105  as  in  the  Assembly's  decree.  Even  there, 
it  points  out,  enfranchisement  is  not  yet  complete.'  It 
is  possible  that  the  greater  part  of  the  country  might 
be  able  to  hberate  itself,  but  if  the  rates  fixed  by  the 

^  Sagnac  and  Caron,  p.  251. 

'  For  the  facts  as  to  emancipation  in  Savoy,  lee  Bruchet  (M.), 
L' abolition  des  droits  seigneuriaux  $n  Savoif, 


150     THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

decree  are  maintained,  "  this  miserable  region,  badly 
endowed  by  nature,  will  bear  the  chains  of  servitude 
eternally."  ^  The  Mayor  of  Saint-Ferjus,  near  Grenoble, 
bears  similar  testimony  in  an  interesting  memoir.  He 
estimates  that  of  every  70  sous  paid  as  indemnity  under 
the  Assembly's  decree,  34  would  represent  an  excess 
over  the  true  value  of  the  rents  and  dues  thus  purchased. 
"  It  results  from  these  observations  that  the  inhabitants 
of  the  country  districts  must  remain  subjected  to  the 
slavery  of  feudaHsm.  .  .  .  The  high  price  at  which  the 
indemnity  has  been  fixed  being  advantageous  only  to 
the  proprietors,  the  debtors,  having  neither  the  will  nor 
the  means  to  Uberate  themselves,  will  be  treated  by  them 
with  more  rigour  than  formerly  ;  the  hopes  of  deliverance 
from  the  oppression  of  the  rent -farmers  with  which  the 
peasants  have  been  entertained  have  been  rendered 
vain  by  the  decrees  the  Assembly  has  passed.  It  is  for 
the  wisdom  of  our  representatives  to  weigh  the  con- 
sequences." 2 

The  fourth  of  the  Dauphin6  documents,  drawn  up 
in  June  by  "  the  general  council  of  the  commune  and  the 
active  citizens  of  Brangues,"  is  so  clearl^j  >vritten  that 
it  merits  quotation  at  some  length,  'f  The  decrees  of 
your  august  Assembly  concerning  the  method  and  price 
of  the  redemption  of  the  feudal  rights  have  spread  con- 
sternation among  the  inhabitants  of  the  rural  districts. 
Along  with  the  whole  of  France  we  applauded  the  im- 
mortal constitution  that  you  have  given  to  this  Empire 
to  guarantee  the  hberty  of  man  and  procure  for  citizens 
security  in  their  properties,  their  enterprises  and  labours. 
Our  most  sacred  duty  is  to  love  our  country  and  interest 
ourselves  in  its  happiness.  The  tender  soHcitude  you 
have  shown  for  the  feeble  and  oppressed  draws  all 
virtuous  and  sensible  hearts  towards  you,  and  gives  us 
confidence  that  you  will  be  willing  to  hear  us."  Then 
the  letter  comes  to  grips  with  its  real  subject. 

»  Sagnac  and  Caron,  p.  254,  *  Ibid.  p.  262, 


THE  RURAL  REVOLUTION,  1790-1        151 

"  The  destruction  of  the  feudal  system  decreed  on  the 
4th  August,  without  which  the  Hberty  of  the  rural  popu- 
lations cannot  exist,  made  us  hope  that  the  price  and 
method  of  redemption  would  be  fixed  in  a  manner  which 
would  enable  us  to  enfranchise  ourselves  from  the  real 
servitudes  which  oppress  this  community,  as  well  as  all 
those  in  the  canton.  We  know  the  respect  due  to  pro- 
perty of  all  kinds  ;  we  have  given  proofs  of  this  in  the 
unhappy  times  when  pillage  and  arson  surrounded  us 
on  every  hand,  but  we  do  not  think  that  we  fail  in  this 
respect  when  we  address  to  you  our  representations  on 
the  decree  of  April  23,  which  renders  it  morally  im- 
possible for  us  to  enfranchise  ourselves  from  the  charges 
with  which  we  are  overwhelmed. 

"  In  brief,  the  ser\itudes  of  this  community  consist 
almost  entirely  in  payments  of  wheat,  and  amount  on 
several  properties  to  three  hichets  for  each  ploughland  of 
600  fathoms.  Calculating  the  value  of  this  species  of 
grain  on  the  basis  fixed  by  the  decree,  that  is,  on  the 
average  price  at  the  nearest  market  during  the  fourteen 
preceding  years  (subtraction  being  made  of  the  two 
highest  and  the  two  lowest  figures),  the  price  of  our  hichet 
of  40  pounds  amounts  to  4  livres,  8  sols,  which,  at  four 
per  cent,  gives  a  capital  value  of  no  livres.  This  is  a 
considerable  sum,  and  up  to  the  present,  when  lords  of 
manors  have  permitted  enfranchisment,  they  have  never 
bargained  for  more  than  70  or  80  livres,  the  casual  rights 
included.  These  dues  on  mutation  are  fixed  in  our 
community  at  one-third  of  the  selhng  price  of  real  estate. 
.  .  .  Now,  what  proprietor,  the  father  of  a  family,  peace- 
ably in  possession,  will  so  miscalculate  as  to  give  the  ninth 
of  liis  fortune  to  free  himself  from  a  charge  which  neither 
he  nor  his  children  may  ever  be  called  upon  to  pay  ? 
The  terms  of  the  decree  are  infinitely  to  the  advantage 
of  the  proprietors  of  rents,  and  much  beyond  anything 
they  would  themselves  have  demanded.  Obliged  to 
make  considerable  payments  for  the  upkeep  and  renewal 


152     THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

of  their  manor-rolls,  to  construct  barns,  and  carry  their 
grain  to  market,  they  would  treble  their  incomes  if  any- 
one were  extravagant  enough  to  liberate  himself  in  this 
manner.  In  fact,  the  hichet  of  wheat,  including  the 
casual  dues,  is  farmed  out  in  this  district  at  from  40  to 
50  sols,  and  redemption  would  increase  its  value  to  7 
livres,  10  sols  at  least. 

"  An  universal  disquiet  has  spread  among  the 
people,  and  it  cries  out  in  its  unhappiness.  The  weight 
of  the  feudal  system,  then,  is  fixed  upon  us  more  firmly 
than  ever  ;  we  are  exposed  to  the  oppressions  of  irritated 
proprietors,  to  the  insolence  of  collectors  and  farmers  of 
rents  who  will  be  inexorable  in  times  of  shortage  ;  unless 
we  deprive  ourselves  of  a  large  part  of  our  property  to 
redeem  ourselves  ...  we  shall  still  sigh  under  the  yoke 
which  will  weigh  upon  our  heads."  ^ 

These  protests  from  Dauphine  do  not  stand  alone  ;  we 
possess  others  from  the  Bouches-du-Rhone,  the  Lot-et- 
Garonne,  the  Basses-Alpes,  the  Yonne,  and  the  Corr^ze. 
They  use  the  same  arguments  and  express  them  in 
almost  identical  words.  "  We  shall  always  be  slaves 
because  the  seigneurial  rights  are  excessive," '  "  You 
announced  in  your  decrees  that  you  had  destroyed  the 
feudal  system  ;  you  did  the  opposite,  and  we  prove 
it  by  a  simple  calculation  that  you  cannot  contradict  ; 
we  shall  always  be  forced  to  call  our  seigneurs  those  to 
whom  we  pay  dues  that  we  cannot  redeem,  on  account 
of  the  excessive  price  you  have  fixed."  The  value  of  the 
charges  on  a  unit  of  land  in  this  district  [Lot-et-Garonne] 
varies  from  300  to  400  livres,  including  the  rents  in  corn, 
fowls,  money  and  labour  ;  their  purchase  price  under  the 
Assembly's  scheme  would  be  540  livres,  and  that  of  the 
casual  dues  500.  "  After  this  proof,  which  cannot  be 
refuted,  no  one  will  buy  ;  we  shall  always  have  seigneurs, 
and,  in  consequence,  your  labour  and  the  decree  which  is 
the  fruit  of  it  are  reduced  to  nothing,  while  we  are  aban- 

1  Sa^ae  and  Caron,  p.  264.  •  JWi*  p.  a6«. 


THE  RURAL  REVOLUTION,  1790-1        158 

doned  to  all  manner  of  vexations.  We  owe  small  thanks 
to  our  six  deputies,  who  have  not  opened  their  mouths 
to  defend  our  interests  in  this  matter  ;  they  know  well 
enough,  and  you  also,  Messieurs,  of  whatever  pro\dnce 
you  may  be,  that  with  400  livres  one  can  buy  the  rents 
of  a  piece  of  land  together  with  the  casual  dues  which  fall 
upon  it  when  it  is  sold.  What  have  you  done,  then  ? 
Nothing  but  exalt  men's  minds  and  make  them  cry  out 
upon  you."  ^  This  was  exceptionally  plain  speaking,  but 
it  came  from  a  region  where  there  had  already  been,  and 
were  to  be  again,  serious  peasant  insurrections. 

The  administrative  assembly  of  the  Basses-Alpes 
vigorously  attacks  the  provisions  of  the  decree  which 
deal  with  the  title-deeds  of  the  feudal  lords.  "  If  the 
yoke  of  feudahsm  has  been  broken,  the  usurpations  of 
which  it  has  been  guilty  still  remain.  How  many  rights 
have  been  estabUshed  by  fraud  ?  How  many  have  been 
extorted  by  fear  and  oppression  ?  How  many,  again, 
owe  their  establishment  to  the  notorious  partiahty  of  our 
higher  tribunals  ?  WTiat  has  been  left  undone  to  wrest 
their  means  of  defence  from  communes  and  from  op- 
pressed individuals  ?  Their  titles  have  been  carried  off 
from  their  own  archives  or  from  the  registers  of  notaries. 
The  law  must  give  them  help  against  such  vexations. 
Of  what  use  would  it  be  that  feudahsm  were  annihilated 
if  the  chains  that  it  has  imposed  upon  us  remained  ? ' '  The 
articles  of  the  decree  which  declare  certain  dues  redeem- 
able, and  enforce  their  payment  till  the  indemnity  has 
been  rendered,  are  worthy  of  praise  since  property  must 
be  respected.  But  the  article  relating  to  proofs  of  title  is 
open  to  grave  objection,  for  there  are  no  express  rules 
and  customs  which  deal  with  this  matter.  "  The  parUa- 
mentary  jurisprudence  on  this  subject  is  truly  oppressive  ; 
a  single  acknowledgment,  supported  by  thirty  years' 
prescription,  suffices  for  the  Church  and  the  seigneurs 
having  rights  of  high  justice  ;  two  acknowledgments  are 
*  Sagnac  and  Caxon,  p.  a«y. 


154     THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

needed  for  the  simple  lord  of  a  manor.  Thus  it  was  to  the 
seigneur  with  rights  of  high  justice,  the  man  who  had  most 
means  of  oppression  at  his  command,  that  were  given  the 
greatest  faciUties  for  arrogating  to  himself  rights  which 
were  not  due  to  him.  If  such  rules  be  followed  to-day, 
there  is  no  usurpation  that  will  not  be  protected."  The 
assembly  urges  that  when  the  seigneurs  cannot  produce 
the  original  title-deeds  of  their  rights,  their  absence 
should  only  be  supplied  by  two  acknowledgments  which 
mention  a  third,  and  are  of  an  earlier  date  than  1650.^ 

The  administrative  officers  of  the  Yonne  fasten  on  the 
same  point,  and  give  a  much-needed  lesson  in  history  to 
the  National  Assembly.  If,  they  urge,  the  rights  which 
have  been  abohshed  without  indemnity  were  servile  in 
their  origin,  exactly  the  same  can  be  said  of  the  rights 
declared  redeemable.  There  is  even  more  reason  to 
suspect  usurpation  in  the  case  of  the  latter,  since  they  are 
more  profitable  to  those  who  own  them  ;  hence  the 
multiplied  refusals  to  pay  on  the  part  of  the  peasants. 
"  The  obstinate  refusals  of  the  people  to  pay  the  champart 
or  tierce  arises  from  the  injustice  of  that  right  in  many 
places  ;  for,  during  the  last  thirty  years,  the  cupidity  of 
the  seigneurs,  the  complacency  of  the  commissioners  for 
renewing  the  manor-rolls,  the  difficulty  in  obtaining 
justice  against  powerful  men,  have  daily  augmented  these 
rights,  and  the  people,  at  once  the  victim  and  the  witness 
of  these  iniquities,  has  again  revolted  against  them. 

"  Why  are  the  rights  of  tierce  and  champart  more 
favoured  than  the  corvees  and  monopolies  if  their  origin 
be  no  purer  ?  And  if,  on  the  contrary,  the  means  of 
extending  the  former  have  been  easier  and  more  common, 
if  their  later  creation  is  only  the  more  suspect,  and,  finally, 
if  by  reason  of  their  value  the  titles  have  been  better 
preserved,  could  they  not  without  injustice  be  submitted 
to  more  rigorous  proof  ?  .  .  .  Nothing  is  less  established 
than  that  the  rights  of  tierce  and  champart  are,  in  general, 

1  Sagnac  and  Carou,  p.  268. 


THE  RURAL  REVOLUTION,  1790-1        155 

the  fruit  of  a  primitive  concession  of  land  ;  it  is  demon- 
strated, on  the  contrary,  and  proved  by  history  and  all 
the  old  titles,  that  these  rights  are  representative  of 
mainmorte  in  the  greater  part  of  the  realm,  since,  in  the 
eleventh  and  succeeding  centuries,  mainmorte  covered  our 
pro\'inces  ;  to  release  the  seigneur  from  the  production  of 
titles  and  charge  the  peasants  with  proof,  is  the  very 
reverse  of  what  we  expected  ; "  if  puts  the  debtor  in  the 
position  of  not  being  able  to  obtain  justice  against  the  most 
odious  of  the  feudal  rights.  .  .  .  Justice,  on  this  occasion, 
seems  to  have  two  weights  and  two  measures  ;  all  the 
rights  of  which  there  is  question  in  the  decree  have  the 
same  origin  ;  some,  however,  are  only  to  be  confirmed 
on  the  strength  of  titles,  whilst  for  the  maintenance  of 
others  only  simple  possession  is  needed,  which  can  alone 
be  destroyed  by  a  proof  almost  impossible  to  obtain.  .  . 

"  Liberty  is  the  common  law  ;  servitude  is  a  right 
beyond  the  limits  of  the  common  law  ;  all  that  which 
is  contrary  to Jiberty  demands  express  proof;  it  is  not 
for  the  slave  to  prove  that  he  has  not  been  bought,  it  is 
for  his  master  to  produce  his  title  of  acquisition  ;  the 
decree  renders  homage  to  this  principle  of  public  law  when 
it  obliges  the  proprietor  of  monopolies  or  corvees  to  justify 
his  possession  by  titles.  The  right  of  champart  holds 
the  land  in  a  state  of  slavery,  it  is  a  right  of  servitude 
over  a  portion  of  the  earth  ;  the  amendment  [to  the 
decree]  derogates  from  principle  when  it  calls  for  direct 
proof  of  the  contrary  from  that  which  owes  the  right  ; 
but,  moreover,  it  derogates  from  reason  when  it  demands 
proofs  by  titles  from  him  who  has  not  and  cannot  have 
these  titles  at  his  disposition.  For  although  the  titles 
are  common  to  the  former  seigneur  and  the  proprietors, 
he  will  not  communicate  them,  or  will  conceal  them 
upon  various  pretexts  as  soon  as  his  interest  warns  him 
of  the  danger  of  this  communication.  Thus,  from  the 
inability  of  the  proprietor  to  afford  a  proof  which  is 
physically  impossible,  will  follow  the  confirmation  of  all 


156    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

usurpations,  and  the  law  which  began  by  promising 
complete  justice  will  end  by  according  none."  ^ 

The  National  Assembly,  then,  did  not  lack  criticism, 
both  destructive  and  constructive,  of  its  work  ;  what 
effect  these  criticisms  had  will  appear  in  the  sequel.  Our 
immediate  concern  is  to  note  the  resistance  to  the  execu- 
tion of  the  decrees  by  the  seigneurs  on  the  one  hand, 
and  by  the  peasants  on  the  other. 

The  nobles  as  a  class  were' favourably  treated  by  the 
decrees  of  1790.  Had  it  been  possible  to  execute  their 
terms,  the  seigneurs  would  have  lost  certain  honorific 
rights  and  even  some  valuable  properties,  but  the  re- 
demption of  the  real  dues  would  have  left  them  con- 
siderably enriched.  Nevertheless,  many  members  of  the 
class  were  unable  to  reconcile  themselves  to  the  loss  of 
their  privileged  position.  As  a  rule,  an  aristocracy  or 
oligarchy  values  its  social  superiority  more  even  than 
the  wealth  which  is  the  basis  of  it,  and  will  fight  much 
harder  to  maintain  its  position  as  a  ruling  class  than  its 
actual  material  prosperity.  Hence  the  determination 
of  many  seigneurs  to  enforce  the  last  jot  and  tittle  of  the 
rights  that  were  left  them,  and  their  unwiUingness  finally 
to  abandon  those  of  which  they  had  been  deprived. 
Moreover,  they  had  been  afraid.  The  fierce  and  sudden 
uprising  of  the  men  of  the  fields  had  carried  terror  into 
every  chateau.  When  the  storm  seemed  to  have  passed, 
and  the  law  had  declared  itself  once  more  the  protector 
of  property  and  privilege,  there  was  a  very  natural  and 
human  disposition  to  strike  back,  to  remind  the  peasant 
in  various  unpleasant  ways  that  master  and  servant 
were  not  empty  words  but  stem  reahties.  The  com- 
plaints and  protests  which  poured  in  to  the  Assembly 
give  ample  e\ddence  of  this  disposition. 

Thus,  on  25  March,  the  very  morrow  of  the  passing 
of  the  new  law,  we  find  "  the  peasants  and  cultivators 
of  the  Haute-Marche  "  complaining  that  "  your  decree 
^  Sagnac  and  Caron,  p.  370. 


THE  RURAL  REVOLUTION,  1790-1        167 

of  the  4th  August  checked  the  hostihties  of  the  seigneurs, 
but  as  soon  as  they  had  knowledge  of  the  last  one  they 
recommenced  their  old  vexations  against  the  petitioners."^ 
At  Villeneuve,  in  Provence,  the  seigneur  endeavours 
to  enforce  his  right  of  retrait  against  a  vassal.*  The 
community  of  Frontignan  (Haute-Garonne)  has  been 
worsted  in  a  lawsuit  with  M.  Dupas  de  Fronsac  in  the 
matter  of  the  erection  of  a  bench  in  the  parish  church. 
It  has  been  cast  in  damages  to  the  extent  of  400  livres, 
and  has  been  compelled  to  beg  for  six  months'  grace. 
But  it  fears  that  it  will  be  no  better  able  to  pay  at  the 
end  of  that  period  than  it  is  at  present,  and  what  will  then 
become  of  it  ?  It  cannot  resist  De  Fronsac,  "  for  he  is 
swimming  in  money  and  the  community  in  poverty  "  ; 
he  will  give  the  people  no  quarter,  "  for  he  has  dared, 
when  speaking  of  our  deputies  in  the  Assembly,  to  say 
that  the  reward  they  may  expect  when  they  return  home 
is  to  have  their  heads  cut  off ;  judge  whether  he  will  show 
us  mercy."  '  The  Mayor  of  Caudan,  in  Brittany,  writes 
to  complain  that  the  local  seigneur  is  endeavouring  to 
compel  the  tenants  on  his  domain  to  carry  out  the  usual 
corvee  of  repairing  his  mill.  With  the  letter  he  encloses 
a  playing-card,  a  nine  of  clubs,  on  the  back  of  which  is 
written,  "  Jacques  Le  Moing,  tenant  at  Koeller,  is  to 
assist  without  fail  in  the  reparation  of  the  mill  at  Plessix  ; 
I  warn  him  that  he  will  be  compelled  to  do  this  at  his  own 
expense,  nothing  as  yet  exempting  him  from  his  obliga- 
tions." "  This  card  will  prove  to  you,  gentlemen,"  adds 
the  indignant  Mayor,  "  how  much  contempt  is  poured 
by  certain  individuals  on  the  wise  decrees  already 
promulgated  by  the  august  Assembly."  This  was 
obviously  a  bold  attempt  to  coerce  the  tenant  ;  the 
corvees  were  included  in  the  class  of  rights  abohshed 
without  indemnity  unless  they  could  be  proved  "  real  " 
in  origin,  and  even  in  this  cast  the  proprietor  had  to 

»  Sagnac  and  Caron,  p.  loi.  •  Vigui«r,  p.  ajy. 

*  Bagnac  and  Caron,  p.  iSj. 


158    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

produce  a  legal  title. i  The  community  of  Velosnes 
(Meuse)  complains  that  the  seigneurs  have  been  harass- 
ing the  people  since  4  August,  and  are  endeavouring 
to  enforce  a  right  of  ten  age  legally  condemned  as  long 
ago  as  1604.  They  have  already  involved  the  com- 
munity in  an  expenditure  of  over  a  thousand  livres,  and 
are  obviously  trying  to  weary  it  out  by  continual  suits. 
They  have,  moreover,  been  pasturing  their  cattle  in  the 
communal  meadow. ^  From  the  region  of  Belfort  there 
comes  in  April  a  protest  against  the  actions  of  the  tithe- 
farmers.  After  the  August  decree  it  had  been  generally 
believed  that  the  tithe  was  abolished,  and  its  proprietors 
made  no  effort  to  collect  it ;  now,  they  are  enforcing  it 
by  prosecutions,  of  which  more  than  three  thousand  are 
in  progress.^  The  municipality  of  Tournau  (Seine-et- 
Marne)  calls  for  the  support  of  the  Assem.bly  against  the 
seigneurs  of  the  district  who  persist  in  hunting  over  the 
fields  of  their  neighbours,  and  defend  their  action  on  the 
ground  that  they  have  a  right  to  do  so  if  the  game  has 
been  started  on  their  own  properties.  The  municipality 
has  pointed  out  that  "  if,  unhappily,  any  proprietor  had 
the  right  to  pursue  game  over  the  lands  of  his  neighbours, 
anyone  could  scour  the  country  for  ten  leagues  round  .  .  . 
which  would  give  rise  to  enormous  brigandage."  * 
Ebblinghem  (Nord)  alleges  that  the  seigneurial  jurisdic- 
tion is  still  enforced  by  the  officers.*  The  Directory 
of  the  Loire-Inferieure  calls  the  Assembly's  attention 
to  an  attempt  to  enforce  the  right  of  sergentise.  This 
is  obviously  a  personal  corvee,  and  as  such  is  aboHshed, 
nevertheless,  the  lord  of  the  manor  has  called  upon  two 
of  his  vassals  to  collect  the  rents  and  render  him  an 
account  within  one  month.  These  individuals  at  first 
began  the  collection  ;  then  "  better  advised  and  en- 
lightened by  the  sentiment  of  liberty  which  has  spread 

^  Sagnac,  p.  417.  *  Sagnac  and  Caron,  p.  371. 

*  Sagnac,  p.  419.  *  Sagnac  and  Caron,  p.  249. 

*  Ibid.  p.  369. 


THE  RURAL  REVOLUTION,  1790-1        159 

into  every  comer  of  France,  they  felt  the  burden  of  a 
corvee  to  which  they  ought  not  to  have  submitted,  and 
returned  both  the  manor-roll  and  the  dues  they  had 
collected  to  the  seigneur."  He  refused  to  receive  them, 
and  legal  proceedings  followed.  "  He  was  neither  aston- 
ished nor  discouraged  ;  wishing  to  sustain  his  preten- 
sions to  the  end,  he  summoned  the  two  receivers  of  rents, 
and  not  only  demanded  payment  in  full,  but  also  an 
acknowledgment  wherein,  along  with  the  declarations 
as  to  their  properties,  they  admitted  the  right  of  ser- 
gentise."  This  was  quite  illegal,  since  the  power  to 
demand  aveux  had  been  swept  away  by  the  March 
decree.^  A  similar  complaint  comes  from  the  Cotes- 
du-Nord.  The  Directory  urges  that  the  Assembly 
should  deal  with  the  matter  at  once.  "  Already,  in  many 
places,  prosecutions  have  begun  .  .  .  complaints  come 
to  us  from  all  parts,  and  we  fear  lest  they  should  speedily 
change  into  ones  of  fury  and  revenge."  ^  The  inhabi- 
tants of  Payrac  (Creuse)  declare  that  "  although  the 
decrees  of  the  august  Assembly  .  .  .  are  sufficiently 
clear  and  precise,  the  former  seigneurs  of  this  province 
of  the  Haute-Marche  continue  to  vex  the  petitioners 
with  demands."  The  lord  of  Saint  Maixent  is  especially 
active,  "  he  alleges  that  the  bouades  and  vinades  [local 
names  for  the  corvees]  which  appear  on  his  court-roll  are 
not  abolished."  ^ 

The  foregoing  citations  are  all  from  documents  of  1790. 
But  there  were  similar  complaints  and  protests  in  1791 
also,  as  the  following  examples  will  show.  In  Januaiy, 
the  municipahty  of  Beauheu  (Corr^zc)  complained  that 
the  farmers  of  feudal  rents  were  still  collecting  dlies  which 
should  have  been  abolished ;  they  ignored  both  the 
decree  and  the  prohibitions  of  the  commune,  and,  relying 
on  the  support  of  the  reactionary  administration  of  the 
department,  continued  to  levy  the  charges  in  question,* 

1  Sagnau:  and  Caron,  p.  389,  '  Ibid.  p.  400. 

•  Sagnac,  p.  416.  *  Sagnac  and  Caron,  p.  208. 


160    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

In  March,  at  Ogn^ville  (Meurthe),  the  seigneurs  were 
endeavouring  to  collect  arrears  of  dues  which  had  been 
abohshed  for  over  a  year.i  A  letter  dated  ii  June 
shows  that  the  law  o£&cers  of  the  seigneurs  were  still 
endeavouring  to  exercise  their  authority  in  Maine-et- 
Loire.  "  FeudaUsm  is  abolished  and  the  seigneurial 
courts  are  suppressed.  The  feudal  notaries  and  sergeants 
continue  to  exercise  their  functions  on  the  territory  of  our 
department."*  In  the  same  month  the  inhabitants  of 
Saint-Maurice-sur-Fessard  (Loiret),  protested  that  the 
seigneurs  were  putting  obstacles  in  the  way  of  those  who 
wished  to  redeem  the  dues.* 

Even  in  full  revolution  the  attacks  of  the  privileged 
class  upon  the  communal  property  of  the  peasants  con- 
tinued. The  inhabitants  of  Quincerot,  in  the  Yonne, 
found  their  pastures  invaded  by  the  farmer  of  the  seig- 
neurial rents,  who  was  also  clerk  to  the  lord's  court.  The 
threats  and  entreaties  of  the  municipality  could  not 
prevent  him  driving  a  flock  of  i8o  sheep  into  the  open 
fields.'*  In  the  same  way,  the  people  of  Nitting  (Meurthe) 
suffered  from  the  ravages  of  the  seigneur's  cattle  in  the 
forest  where  they  enjoyed  rights  of  usage  ;  trees  of  all 
ages  were  attacked,  "  nothing  is  respected,  everything  is 
subjected  to  the  teeth  of  his  beasts,  which,  alone  enjoy 
the  pn  vilege  of  browsing  in  the  forest  throughout  its  whole 
extent."  Remonstrances  were  useless  ;  "  I  must  enjoy 
it  while  I  can,"  was  the  answer,  "make  profit,  and  augment 
my  revenues."  *  Seven  villages  of  the  Isere  wrote  to 
complain  of  the  usurpations  of  the  Carthusians  in  their 
communal  woods  ;  "  they  have  never  been  carried  so  far, 
they  have  never  been  made  with  so  little  disguise  .  .  . 
as  since  the  passing  of  the  decree  which  transferred 
ecclesiastical  properties  to  the  Nation."  •  At  Jouy- 
sous-les-C6tes  (Mease)  the  municipality  complained  that 
the  lord  had,  by  enclosing  land,  prevented  the  inhabitants 

*  Sagnac  and  Caron,  p.  417.  *  Ibid.  p.  200.  » Ibid.  p.  418. 

*  Ibid.  p.  jjoj.  » Ibid,  p.  jiS.  •  Ibid.  p.  534. 


THE  RURAL  REVOLUTION,  1790-1        161 

enjoying  the  customary  rights  of  pasture  in  the  open 
fields  after  the  harvest,  and  had  proceeded  against  them 
for  breaking  down  his  hedge. ^ 

But  the  feudal  offensive,  vigorous  though  it  was, 
shrinks^to  small  proportions  when  compared  with  that 
of  the  peasants.  Deceived  and  disappointed,  the  rural 
masses  flung^themselves  into  the  war  against  the  chateaux 
with  renewed  eiiefgy.  A  songTan^tTirough  the  villages 
of  Perigord  which  describes  the  popular  attitude  in  rude 
dialogue.  A  peasant,  going  to  his  work  in  the  early 
morning,  meets  a  seigneur,  who  threatens  to  tread  him 
under  his  horse's  hoofs.  "  Come  on,  Monsieur,"  cries  the 
peasant,  "and  I  will  argue  with  you  with  my  axe  and 
goad  !  "  "  Rascal  peasant,"  the  lord  repHes,  "  I  have 
known  the  time  when  you  were  not  so  haughty,  when  you 
came  to  borrow  bread  and  wine  from  me."  "  Monsieur," 
comes  the  triumphant  answer,  "  thanks  to  the  good  God 
the  old  davs  are  no  more  !  If  the  peasants  wished  it,  the 
gentlemen  would  have  to  go  to  work  themselves."  ^  The 
old  days  are  no  more  :  that  short  sentence  summed  up 
the  peasant's  attitude.  Feudalism  for  him  was  aboHshed  ; 
if  the  nobles  and  lawyers  in  Paris  would  not  sweep  the 
accursed  thing  away  he  would  do  it  himself.  In  the 
papers  of  the  feudal  Committee  we  can  see  him  at  work. 

We  note  that  the  war  on  the  seigneurial  benches  in 
the  churches  continues.  The  cure  of  Buxieres  (Alher) 
writes  that  his  parishioners  have  dragged  them  out  and 
destroyed  them,  following  in  this  the  example  of  the 
neighbouring  villages.  The  municipaUty  has  fined  the 
rioters  3  livres,  but  dares  not  do  more,  for  "  the  people 
are  too  furious  and  will  not  suffer  it.^  The  weather- 
cocks, too,  continued  to  be  an  eyesore  to  certain  popula- 
tions. The  departmental  authorities  of  the  Corr^ze  beg 
advice  on  this  subject  in  January  1791  ;  people  think  that 
"  the  weather-cocks,  having  always  served  as  the  exterior 

>  Bussi^re,  p.  i66.  •  Sagnac  and  Caron,  p.  190. 

»  Ibid.  p.  193. 

II 


162     THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

sign  of  a  fief,  and  consequently  of  feudal  power,  ought  to 
be  torn  down."  The  question  is  urgent,  for  insurrections 
are  on  the  point  of  breaking  out  all  over  the  depart- 
ment.^  In  April  1790,  at  Urvillers,  near  Saint-Quentin, 
the  seigneur  appeals  to  the  National  Assembly  for  pro- 
tection against  the  Mayor  and  inhabitants,  who  threaten 
to  cut  down  his  trees.  ^ 

It  was,  however,  during  the  summer  months  that  the 
anti -feudal  movement  was  most  violent.  In  June,  at 
Davenescourt  {Somme),the  portion  of  the  commons  which 
had  been  enclosed  by  the  Comtesse  de  la  Myre  in  1785 
was  invaded  by  armed  inhabitants,  who  terrorised  the 
municipaUty  and  threatened  to  kill  anyone  who  inter- 
fered with  them.^  At  Chateau  villain  (Haute-Marne),  the 
peasants  drove  their  flocks  to  pasture  in  the  seigneurial 
woods,  and  guarded  them,  musket  in  hand.*  In  the 
Nievre,  more  than  fifty  persons,  armed  with  all  sorts  of 
rustic  weapons,  marched  on  Asnan,  invaded  the  house 
of  a  notary,  and  forcibly  compelled  him  to  refund  the 
dues  they  had  paid.  They  spent  the  rest  of  the  day 
peaceably  in  the  inns  of  the  place,  and  after  their  return 
home  published,  "  to  the  sound  of  a  drum,"  an  order  that 
whosoever  paid  the  dues  in  future  would  be  fined  ten 
francs.^  In  the  Loiret,  rumours  were  spread  about 
the  country  that  the  National  Assembly  had  suppressed 
the  champart ;  the  inhabitants  refused  to  hand  over  the 
sheaves,  and  at  Coinces  fired  a  proprietor's  bam.  The 
municipal  bodies  were  unable  or  unwilling  to  intervene  ; 
at  Nemours,  a  crowd  of  200  persons  terrorised  the  judges, 
while  the  officers  of  the  court  were  threatened  or  ill- 
treated.^  At  Gariavet  (Gers),  the  Mayor  announced 
after  Mass  on  Sunday,  that  he  had  received  a  decree 
which  forbade  the  payment  of  dues,  and  authorised  the 
seizure  of  the  commons.     The  following  Saturday,  the 

1  Sagnac  and  Caron,  p.  214.  "  Ibid.  p.  545. 

3  Ibid.  p.  557.  *  Ibid.  p.  650. 

»  Ibid.  pp.  383  and  631.  •  I  bid.  ^]f.  6  52. 


THE  RURAL  REVOLUTION,   1790-1        168 

peasants  assembled,  and  after  parading  the  village, 
broke  into  two  of  the  lord's  farms,  carried  away  corn, 
beat  down  the  fences  of  his  garden,  and  threatened  to 
bum  the  chateau.  According  to  his  own  account,  they 
refrained  from  doing  so  simply  because  he  was  not  there  ! 
Subsequently,  he  was  warned  not  to  appear  in  Garravet  ; 
the  priest  was  ordered  not  to  give  him  shelter  ;  the  pay- 
ment of  rents  for  the  use  of  his  mill  was  forbidden  on 
pain  of  death.  After  an  unsuccessful  attempt  to  extort 
a  renunciation  of  his  rights,  the  village  cattle  were  turned 
loose  in  his  fields. ^  In  the  Yonne,  four  municipahties 
summoned  the  proprietors  of  feudal  dues  to  deposit  their 
title-deeds  for  examination  within  a  fortnight,  failing 
which,  the  payment  of  all  dues  would  be  forbidden.  The 
royal  Council  was  obliged  to  intervene  and  nullify  these 
orders."  A  letter  from  a  priest  at  Mirepoix  (Ariege)  shows 
that  in  Languedoc,  also,  the  peasants  were  demanding  the 
production  of  the  original  titles  of  feudal  property.  He 
reports  a  general  refusal  of  dues,  and  states  that  officers 
sent  by  the  seigneurs  have  been  imprisoned  and  threat- 
ened with  hanging.^  At  Barles,  in  the  Basses-Alpes,  the 
community  seized  upon  the  mountain  pastures  which 
belonged  to  the  Vicomte  d'Alais-Montalet,  forbade  his 
farmers  to  take  their  flocks  there,  and  withheld  payments 
due  to  him.*  In  August,  at  Salon  (Bouches-du-Rhone), 
anti-feudal  disturbances  were  so  serious  that  it  was 
necessary  to  call  out  the  National  Guards  of  the  surround- 
ing communes,  and  even  to  bring  up  regular  troops.* 
In  September,  the  municipal  ofl&cers  of  Brive  (Correze) 
reported  serious  fermentations  in  that  region,  arising 
from  a  curious  cause.  A  notary  named  Viridot  was  selhng 
titles  to  the  peasants  which  showed  that  they  owed  very 
much  smaller  amounts  of  dues  than  they  had  been  accus- 
tomed to  pay.  Whether  these  documents  were  genuine 
or  not,  the  municipaUty  dechned  to  say  ;  it  was  certain, 

*  Sagnac  and  Caron,  p.  375.  » Ibid.  p.  381. 

•  Ibid.  p.  397.  *  Ibid.  p.  636.  •  Ibid.  p.  334. 


164     THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

however,  that  the  people  were  withholding  their  rents. 
The  seigneurs  had  suggested  calling  out  the  National 
Guard  to  enforce  payment,  but  "  we  must  warn  you, 
gentlemen,  that  such  a  demand  may  become  the  germ 
of  civil  war  ;  the  peasants  are  too  obstinate  to  give  way." 
There  would  be  ten  of  them  to  every  guard,  and  it  is 
certain,  moreover,  that  the  latter  would  refuse  to  march, 
for  they,  also,  owe  the  dues.^ 

The  most  interesting,  perhaps,  of  all  these  documents, 
is  a  letter  addressed  to  the  National  Assembly  by  the 
seigneur  of  Montaut,  near  Auch.  It  describes  in  detail  a 
typical  series  of  incidents  in  the  war  against  the  chateaux, 
and  at  the  same  time  throws  a  flood  of  light  on  the 
mentality  of  the  feudal  class. 

The  struggle  at  Montaut  began  at  the  feast  of  All 
Saints,  "  the  season  when  the  rents  are  paid."  One 
Joseph  Roucau,  a  mason,  cried  from  the  church  steps 
that  the  inhabitants  and  tenants  were  forbidden  to  pay 
dues  of  any  kind,  on  pain  of  ha\dng  their  houses  burnt 
over  their  heads.  The  threat  was  effectual,  for  only 
three  dared  to  pay.  The  rest,  not  content  with  refusing 
to  acquit  the  rents  actually  due,  withheld  all  payments 
of  arrears,  and  persuaded  the  tenants  on  other  estates 
to  make  common  cause  with  them.  But  the  Revolution 
had  put  another  weapon  into  the  hands  of  the  peasants, 
by  abolishing  the  privileges  of  the  nobles  in  matters  of 
taxation.  The  communities  played  an  important  part 
in  fixing  the  assessments,  and  to  this  new  engine  of 
war  the  people  of  Montaut  resorted.  They  accused 
Rouilhac,  their  seigneur  (whether  justly  or  not  we  have 
no  means  of  deciding),  of  corruptly  evading  taxation, 
and  then  procured  the  increase  of  his  charges  by  nearly 
iioo  livres,  if  we  are  to  accept  his  own  account.  The 
Mayor  was  terrorised,  or  professed  to  be  so  ;  judicial 
officers  were  threatened  ;  seditious  placards  were  fixed 
to  the  church  door,  and  the  seigneur  was  told  that  he 

^  Sagnac  and  Caron,  p.  208. 


THE  RURAL  REVOLUTION,  1790-1        165 

might  consider  himself  fortunate  inasmuch  as  his  chateau 
had  not  been  fired.  "  What  is  to  be  done  ?  "  wrote  the 
unhappy  gentleman.  "  There  is  neither  subordination 
nor  law  in  force.  .  .  .Men  talk  of  nothing  but  hanging 
and  burning  ;  such  is  the  consequence  of  the  anarchy 
into  which  we  are  plunged.  .  .  .  What  can  be  hoped 
for  from  the  municipaHties  ?  WTiat  is  their  usual  com- 
position ?  WTio  is  wiUing  to  expose  himself  to  be  mocked 
by  a  cobbler  ?  .  .  .  What  can  one  expect  from  such 
persons  ?  They  are  our  tenants,  and  consequently  in- 
terested in  evading  payment  ;  they  are  all  related  or 
bound  together  by  a  common  interest.  .  .  .  Are  they 
not  judges  and  parties  ?  What  is  to  be  expected  from 
men  without  property,  education,  or  morahty,  who 
know  nothing  but  violence,  and  have  been  reared  in 
rascahty  ?  Would  not  a  peasant  steal  with  impunity 
if  he  did  not  fear  the  rope  ?  "  In  the  attitude  of  mind 
revealed  by  that  last  sentence  we  discover  the  cause  of 
the  rural  revolutions.^ 

It  was  in  these  regions  of  the  South- West  that  the 
flame  of  insurrection  burned  most  fiercely  in  the  summer, 
ailn  the  previous  winter  and  spring.  In  the  Lot,  which 
included  most  of  the  old  province  of  Quercy,  the  dis- 
turbances were  particularly  violent,  the  maj^poles 
appeared  again,  sometimes  accompanied  by  gallows 
which  served  as  a  warning  to  those  who  might  be  weak 
enough  to  pay  their  rents.  The  Directory  of  the  depart- 
ment issued  a  proclamation  to  the  people,  but  without 
avail.  "  Here,  the  municipal  officers  dared  not  read 
this  proclamation  ;  there,  they  were  unable  to  finish  it  ; 
elsewhere,  they  could  not  read  it  a  second  time.  In  one 
municipality,  the  priest,  after  having  read  it,  was  forcibly 
compelled  to  declare  that  it  was  false  and  did  not  come 
from  the  Directory ;  in  others,  the  people  have  returned 
to  the  planting  of  maypoles,  that  uniform  sign  of  in- 
surrection. ...  In    others,   again,    gallows    have    been 

*  Sagnac  auid  Caron,  p.  3931 


166    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

erected  for  whoever  should  dare  to  pay  rents  or  collect 
them."  Such  a  gallows  had  been  put  up  at  the  very 
gate  of  Cahors,  where  the  Directory  sat  !  The  more 
moderate  section  of  the  population  contented  itself  with 
refusing  payment  till  the  titles  of  the  seigneurs  had  been 
verified ;  at  Aynac,  the  peasants  declared  that  they 
repented  having  paid,  because  they  had  since  acquired 
titles  which  showed  that  their  dues  were  three  times  as 
heavy  as  they  ought  to  have  been.  As  some  compen- 
sation, however,  they  took  possession  of  a  meadow  which 
they  said  had  been  wrested  from  them  by  violence.^ 

Conditions  worsened  as  the  winter  drew  near  ;  the 
departmental  authorities  dispatched  troops  to  destroy 
the  maypoles,  but  they  were  met  with  armed  resistance. 
At  Saint-Germain-du-Bel-Air,  the  soldiers  found  them- 
selves compelled  to  retreat  to  Gourdon,  pursued  with 
volleys  of  stones.  In  December,  a  veritable  peasant 
army,  4500  strong,  led  by  a  noble,  one  Joseph  de  Linars, 
laid  siege  to  Gourdon  itself.  The  town  was  occupied 
and  the  soldiers  obliged  to  surrender  their  cannon.  On 
the  4th,  the  peasants,  whose  numbers  had  enormously 
increased,  proceeded  to  devastate  the  houses 'of  nobles 
and  officials.  On  the  6th,  it  was  the  turn  of  the  monastery 
of  Saint-Clair  ;  on  the  7th,  the  insurrectionary  army 
left  Gourdon,  but  spread  through  the  neighbourhood, 
pillaging  the  chateaux  as  it  went.  The  districts  of 
Cahors  and  Lauzerte  were  similarly  disturbed,  thirty 
houses  or  chateaux  being  attacked  in  the  latter.^ 

The  revolt  had  now  reached  dimensions  which  made 
it  impossible  for  the  local  authorities  to  cope  with  it  ; 
in  despair,  they  appealed  to  the  National  Assembly. 
On  the  13th,  the  latter  decreed  that  the  King  should  be 
asked  to  send  troops  to  the  disturbed  area,  along  with 
two  civil  commissioliers  who"  would  inquire  into  the 
causes^fTHFlnsurrecfioh  and  suggest  remedies  for  it. 
Go^ard  and  Ro"biiT,~  the  two  persons  appointed  to  this 

1  Sagnac  and  Caron,  pp.  385  and  661.  *  Aulard,  pp.  120-3. 


THE  RURAL  REVOLUTION,  1790-1        167 

office,  showed  themselves  to  be  humane  and  sensible 
men,  who  conceived  their  mission  to  be  one  of  concilia- 
tion and  appeasement.  They  began  the  task  with  a 
dignified  appeal  for  order  ;  they  distributed  this  to  the 
parish  priests,  and  very  wisely  asked  for  their  support. 
Then  they  arranged  for  delegates  of  the  peasants  to  meet 
them  at  Gourdon,  where,  on  ii  January  1791  and  the 
succeeding  days,  the  conference  was  held.  Their  report 
on  these  proceedings  is  a  most  valuable  document,  deahng 
as  it  does  both  with  economic  coditions  and  the  mental 
attitude  of  the  agricultural  class. ^ 

"  In  some  of  the  villages,"  says  the  report,  "  the  rents 
of  1789  had  been  paid,  and  the  people  were  ready  to  pay 
those  of  1790  if  the  proprietors  demanded  them  ;  but 
in  almost  all  there  had  been  no  payment  for  either  year. 
The  peasants,  however,  did  not  refuse  to  pay,  but  were 
only  wilUng  to  do  so  after  the  verification  of  the  title- 
deeds.  .  .  .  These  words,  '  original  titles,'  were  in 
every  one's  mouth  whenever  we  mentioned  rents.  The 
reason  why  the  peasants  so  energetically  and  unani- 
mously demanded  the  original  titles  was  the  excessive 
rate  of  the  actual  rents  and  the  enormous  surcharges 
included  in  the  recognitions.  In  certain  neighbour- 
hoods, we  were  told,  the  peasant  pays  the  seigneur  a 
third  of  the  harvest,  that  is,  three  bushels  out  of  nine,  and 
the  extra  charges  are  a  half  or  two-thirds  more  than  the 
amount  stated  in  the  primitive  title  ;  the  result  is  that 
the  man  who,  according  to  this  title,  formerly  paid 
twelve  quarters  of  com  is  now  obliged  to  pay  eighteen 
or  twenty."  The  peasants  held  that  they  had  a  right 
to  be  repaid  these  immense  sums  illegally  extorted  from 
them,  and  they  justified  their  refusals  of  payment  and 
their  violent  acts  on  this  ground. 

The  commissioners  made  particular  inquiries  as  to  the 
planting  of  the  maypoles  and  their  significance.     (These 

1  The  report  is  given  in  full  in  Maridal  et  Laurent,  vol.  xxv.  pp.  273- 
309- 


168    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

emblems  seem,  indeed,  to  have  caused  extraordinary 
apprehension  in  governing  circles.)  The  answers  to  their 
questions  are  worth  recording.  When  they  mentioned  the 
subject,  "  the  words  '  liberty  '  and  '  signs  of  rejoicing  for 
liberty  '  were  pronounced  by  all.  We  asked  if  it  were  not 
believed  that  when  a  maypole  had  been  planted  for  a  year 
and  a  day,  the  people  were  free  henceforward  from  all 
payments  of  rent,  and  if  this  were  not  the  cause  of  their 
universal  plantation  ?  The  question  was  negatived  with 
a  smile  ;  they  could  not  believe  that  we  really  entertained 
such  an  idea.  They  answered  that  a  piece  of  wood  stuck 
in  the  earth  could  no  more  destroy  a  title  than  increase 
its  value  or  create  a  new  one."  It  would  appear,  however, 
that  the  commissioners  did  subsequently  meet  a  "  very 
small  number  of  persons  "  who  cherished  this  "  super- 
stition." "  In  general,"  the  report  concludes,  "  the  idea 
attached  to  the  maypoles  was  that  of  the  conquest  of 
liberty  ;  they  are  ornamented  almost  everywhere  with 
ribbons,  surmounted  with  a  laurel  crown  or  a  bouquet  of 
flowers,  and  bear  a  civic  inscription  :  Long  live  the  Nation, 
the  Law,  and  the  King  !  In  the  whole  of  the  district, 
there  were  only  three  communes  whose  maypoles  bore  a 
sign  of  insurrection.  ...  At  Saint-Cirq  and  Milhac  they 
carried  sieves,  which  had  some  relation  to  enfranchisement 
from  rents.  At  Leobard,  the  maypole  was  crowned  with 
a  weather-cock  taken  by  the  inhabitants  from  the  lord's 
chateau.  ...  In  these  three  places  we  were  promised 
that  the  signs  of  sedition  or  disobedience  to  the  law 
should  disappear." 

Their  inquiries  completed,  Godard  and  Robin  har- 
angued the  delegates  as  to  the  benefits  conferred  upon 
them  by  the  King  and  the  National  Assembly.  The  tithe, 
the  corvees,  the  salt-tax,  the  hunting  rights,  had  all  been 
aboIished~;^he  seigneurs  were  now  their  equals  before  the 
law,  but  this  must  be  respected.  If  they  had  wrongs,to 
redress,  let  them  proceed  in  a  legaTanjror^ly  fashion 
by  means. ofIEe^Qiiits_ol]^^         'ThisTanguage  had  an 


THE  RURAL  REVOLUTION,  1790-1       169 

immediate  effect  upon  the  peasants  ;  they  all  promised  to 
abandon  violent  methods,  and  some  even  agreed  to  pay 
their  rents  before  the  titles  were  verified.  "  The  greater 
number,  we  must  admit,  did  not  make  us  this  last  promise; 
they  gave  as  their  reasons  the  enormous  restitutions  which 
ought  to  be  made  to  them,  the  contradiction  that  there 
would  be  in  making  pa^Tnents  to  their  debtors,  and  the 
load  of  poverty  under  which  they  groaned,  caused  by  the 
scandalous  overcharges  they  had  supported  for  so  long, 
and  by  two  years  of  dearth."  The  report  concludes  by 
an  impressive  description  of  the  commissioners'  methods 
— "  we  have  acted  only  by  persuasion  and  the  law  " — 
and  a  defence  of  them.  It  should  be  remembered,  they 
urged,  that  education  was  lacking  in  the  rural  districts, 
and  that  it  was  better  to  spread  enlightenment  than  to 
punish  men  who  were  only  reacting  against  the  oppression 
of  centuries.  They  ended  with  an  eloquent  plea  for  a 
truly  national  system  of  education,  a  plea  which, 
we  may  note,  was  not  seriously  acted  upon  by  the 
Assembly. 

Godard  and  Robin  had  checked,  though,  as  we  shall 
see,  not  extinguished  the  insurrectionary  movement  in 
the  Lot  ;  meanwhile,  it  had  been  raging  in  other  provinces. 
In  July,  the  inhabitants  of  Neret,  near  La  Chatre,  invaded 
a  field  belonging  to  the  Abbaye  des  Pierres,  which,  they 
declared,  was  old  common  land,  and  began  to  reap  the 
corn  on  it.  The  National  Guard  from  La  Chatre  had 
to  be  called  out  to  disperse  them.^  Troubles  broke  out 
again  in  Mayenne,  in  the  following  months  ;  the  chateau 
of  Dampierre,  near  Domfront,  and  others  were  attacked 
by  peasants.'  In  Auvergne,  the  chateaux  of  Pradt  and 
La  Prade  were  burnt  ;  at  Saint-Hippolytc-du-Fort,  in 
the  Gard,  a  band  of  armed  youths  paraded  the  streets 
during  the  nights  of  14  and  15  October,  tearing 
down  the  coats-of-arms  from  the  nobles'  houses.  At 
Verfeuil,  in  the  same  department,  there  were  refusals  of 

*  Bruneau,  p.  187.  •  Duchemin,  p.  44  note. 


170    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

rents  ;  the  word  went  forth  that  no  payments  were  to  be 
made,  and  the  seigneur  himself  was  threatened.^ 

In  Perigord,  where  the  revolt  had  flickered  out  in 
March,  disturbances  began  again  at  the  end  of  May.  On 
the  26th,  at  Thenon,  Joseph  de  Vayre  was  attacked  by 
his  vassals,  "  who  came,"  he  wrote,  "  to  pillage,  insult, 
and  baffle  him  in  his  own  house."  They  demanded  the 
refunding  of  old  fines,  and  the  return  of  guns  taken  from 
them.  2  In  July,  the  chateau  of  Marqueyssat  was  attacked 
and  ransacked  for  arms  ;  the  insurgents  feasted  on  the 
lord's  provisions,  and  bore  away  triumphantly  the  mea- 
sures used  for  testing  the  com  rents. ^  The  celebration 
of  the  fete  of  the  Federation  on  the  14th  of  the  same  month 
gave  occasion  for  fresh  violence.  At  Grun  and  N^grondes, 
the  seigneurial  benches  in  the  churches  were  attacked  ;  on 
the  25th,  a  similar  scene  occurred  at  Bourdeille.'*  In  the 
autumn,  when  the  season  of  the  collection  of  dues 
approached,  the  peasants  passed  to  more  serious  action  ; 
at  Saint-Martial,  a  band  surrounded  the  Marquise  de 
Cherval,  demanded  the  production  of  the  original  title- 
deeds,  broke  into  the  chateau,  and  carried  off  the  grain. ^ 
At  La  Cropte,  the  scenes  of  the  previous  year  were  re- 
peated, the  notice  demanding  the  payment  of  rents  was 
torn  down,  and  the  commander  of  the  National  Guard 
threatened  the  punishment  of  anyone  who  dared  to  pay.' 

The  year  1791  brought  no  betterment  of  the  situa- 
tion. From  March  onwards,  a  succession  of  disturbances 
occurred  in  all  quarters  of  the  territory.  We  can  best 
follow  them  in  chronological  order. 

On  15  March,  the  mayors  and  municipal  officers  of 
several  communes  in  the  Charente  reported  to  Merlin  de 
Douai  that  "  we  have  perhaps  arrived  at  the  moment 
when  authority  will  be  obliged  to  employ  force  to  con- 
strain the  inhabitants  of  our  cantons  to  pay  the  feudal 

*  Rouvi^re,  vol.  i.  pp.  221-2.  *  Bussi^re,  p.  340. 
» Ibid.  p.  351.                                               *  Ibid.  pp.  407-13. 

*  Ibid.  p.  437  et  seq.  •  Ibid.  p.  381. 


THE  RURAL  REVOLUTION,  1790-1        171 

dues."  The  grievances  and  demands  of  the  peasants  as 
described  in  this  document  are  familiar  ;  illegal  increases 
of  rent,  the  use  of  false  measures,  the  refusal  of  the  seigneurs 
to  produce  the  original  title-deeds.^  A  letter  of  the  25th 
from  the  parish  priest  of  Blandy  (Seine-et-Oise)  reports 
that  refusals  to  pay  the  champart  are  almost  certain  to 
occur  in  his  district  at  the  harvest  season  ;  the  people 
suspect  that  there  are  no  titles,  and  allege  that  where  the 
former  seigneurs  were  ecclesiastical  bodies  the  tithe  was 
illegally  added  to  the  champart.^  In  the  same  month 
the  department  of  the  Creuse  informed  the  Minister  of 
"War  that  anon^nious  letters  were  being  sent  to  the 
magistrates,  threatening  them  if  they  gave  decisions  in 
favour  of  pacing  the  cens.  "  In  almost  all  the  cantons 
the  peasants  are  refusing  payment ;  some  even  announce 
that  they  will  destroy  the  person  and  property  of  who- 
soever shall  dare  to  demand  of  it  them."  '  In  April, 
the  irrepressible  people  of  the  Lot  began  to  stir  again  ;  at 
Bourg-de-Visa,  Miramont,  and  Saint-Urcisse  there  were 
risings  in  which  properties  were  pillaged  and  burnt.* 
There  were  fresh  troubles  in  Brittany  also  ;  at  Chateau- 
briant,  "  the  popular  fermentation  "  was  such  that  the 
steward  of  the  Prince  de  Conde  had  to  fly  for  his  hfe,^ 
About  Easter,  the  peasants  of  the  Morbihan  were  every- 
where withholding  their  dues.' 

In  May,  conflicts  in  these  same  regions,  the  Creuse,  the 
Lot,  and  Brittany,  continued.  There  were  riots  at 
Benevent  and  Grand-Bourg  ;  in  the  latter,  chairs  and 
benches  were  dragged  from  the  church  and  destroyed  ; 
the  walls  of  gardens  were  demolished  ;  the  destruction  of 
the  chateau  that  had  formerly  belonged  to  the  chapter 
of  Saint-Etienne-de-Limoges  was  only  prevented  by  the 
arrival  of  troops.'     At  Castelnau-Montratier,  two  nobles, 

•  Sagnac  and  Caron,  p.  413.  *  Ibid.  p.  466. 

•  Duval,  p.  60.  *  Aulard,  p.  133. 

•  S^e  and  L^sort,  vol.  ii.  p.  312  note. 

•  Du  Chatellier,  vol.  i.  p.  422.  *  Duval,  p.  62. 


172    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

the  brothers  De  Balhid,  were  besieged  in  their  own  house  ; 
one  committed  suicide,  the  other  was  dragged  a  prisoner 
to  Cahors  and  hanged  by  the  people. ^  The  municipal 
officers  of  Saint-Germain-du-Pinel  (Ille-et-Vilaine)  were 
obliged  to  declare  that  they  would  regard  as  "  disturbers 
of  the  pubUc  peace  "  those  who  attacked  the  properties 
of  the  former  seigneurs.^  In  June,  in  the  same  depart- 
ment, the  iron  workers  of  the  forges  at  Martigne-Fer- 
chaud  pillaged  and  destroyed  the  chateaux  of  Bois-Feillet 
and  La  Seguintere,  which  belonged  to  their  employers,^ 
In  July,  there  were  fresh  burnings  and  devastations  in 
the  Lot,  notably  at  Montclar,  Saint-Urcisse,  and  Cahors.* 
The  cure  of  Raincheval  (Somme)  wrote  to  the  feudal 
Committee  that  the  attempts  of  the  departmental  admini- 
stration to  enforce  the  payment  of  the  champart  had  driven 
the  people  to  fury  ;  "  the  case  is  urgent,  there  have  been 
riotous  assemblies  for  more  than  eight  leagues  round."  * 
Attempts  to  collect  the  same  due  led  to  revolts  and  re- 
fusals in  the  Yonne.^  Troubles  in  the  departments  of  the 
Lot  and  the  Creuse  continued  in  August ;  a  report  from 
the  Mayor  of  La  Soulteraine  in  the  latter  shows  that 
anonj^mous  letters  were^  in  circulation  which  >called  for 
an  armed  assembly  to  force  the  proprietors  to  produce 
their  titles.  This  assembly  actually  took  place  on  the 
23rd,  when  the  mayors  of  the  participating  communes, 
clad  in  their  official  scarves,  marched  at  the  head  of  their 
people.  The  rioters  were  dispersed  by  troops,  and  some 
80  prisoners,  from  twelve  different  parishes,  were  taken.' 
At  Ichy  (Seine-et-Marne)  the  inhabitants  repelled  by 
force  every  attempt  to  collect  the  champart.^  A  letter 
from  the  municipality  of  Tulle  shows  that  a  similar  state 
of  affairs  prevailed  in  the  Correze.  The  members  declare 
that  "  their  zeal  and  vigilance  can  no  longer  suffice  for  the 

*  Aulard,  p.  136.  •  S6e  and  L6sort,  vol.  i.  p.  343  note. 

*  Ibid.  vol.  i.  419  note.  *  Aulard,  p.  136. 

*  Sagnac  and  Caron,  p.  278.       '  Ibid.  p.  465. 

'  Duval,  pp.  63-7.  •  Sagnac,  p.  413. 


THE  RURAL  REVOLUTION,  1790-1         178 

maintenance  of  order  in  the  neighbouring  rural  districts  ; 
every  day  the  most  sacred  properties  are  violated,  the 
fish-ponds  pillaged,  the  monks  insulted ;  on  the  pretext 
of  the  abohtion  of  tithes  and  the  feudal  system,  those  who 
demand  dues  that  are  not  abohshed  are  menaced  ;  insur- 
rections, rare  at  first,  are  rapidly  spreading  ;  the  tribunals 
are  forced  to  resort  to  temporisiiigs  that  weaken  the  laws 
and  encourageHcence/'  ^ 

WTiat  was  the  attitude  of  the  National  Assembly 
towards  these  incessant  revolts  of  the  peasants  ?  The 
question  can  best  be  answered  by  a  short  descnption 
of  its  legislation  on  the  subject.  On  i8  June  1790,  it 
was  decreed  that  the  tithe,  the  champart,  and  all  other 
dues  were  to  be  paid  in  the  accustomed  manner.  This 
was  in  answer  to  demands  that  money  payments  might 
be  substituted  for  those  in  produce.  The  same  decree 
forbade  "  all  persons  whatsoever  to  impede  the  collection 
of  the  tithes  and  champaris,  whether  by  writings,  speeches, 
threats,  acts  of  violence  or  otherwise,  on  pain  of  being 
prosecuted  as  disturbers  of  public  order."  In  July,  a 
discussion  on  certain  anti-feudal  disturbances  in  the 
Seine-et-Mame  resulted  in  a  general  decree  which  gave 
power  to  the  local  authorities  to  requisition  troops  for 
use  against  agrarian  insurgents.  On  3  August,  the 
Assembly,  in  a  fresh  decree,  prayed  the  King  "  to  give 
the  most  precise  and  urgent  orders  that,  throughout  the 
realm,  and  particularly  in  the  department  of  Loiret,  the 
courts  shall  prosecute  and  punish  with  the  utmost  severity 
all  those  who  .  .  .  oppose  themselves  by  \iolence, 
threats,  or  otherwise,  to  the  pa>Tnent  of  tithes,  champarts, 
and  otherseigneurial  rights  which  have  not  been  suppressed 
without  indemnity."  The  municipaUties  were  to  be  in- 
structed "  to  destroy  all  exterior  signs  of  insurrection  and 
sedition,"  a  provision  obviously  aimed  at  the  maypoles 
of  Perigord  and  Quercy.  The  Assembly's  action  in  De- 
cember v\ith  regard  to  the  upheavals  in  the  last-named 

*  Sagnac  aad  Caron,  p.  646. 


174    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

province  has  already  been  described.  Finally,  in  June 
1791,  the  legislature  called  the  peasants  to  order  with 
brutal  directness,  in  a  further  decree.  "  It  is  time,"  it 
said,  "  for  the  citizens  whose  industry  fertihses  the  fields 
and  nourishes  the  empire  to  return  to  duty,  and  render  to 
property  the  homage  that  they  owe  it."  After  a  long 
exposition  of  the  famous  theory  of  categories,  the  decree 
continues :  "  Thus,  there  is  no  more  excuse  for  unjust 
refusals  of  payment,  and  whosoever  is  guilty  of  such  a 
refusal  must  expect  to  be  considered  by  all  as  a  rebel 
against  the  law,  as  a  usurper  of  the  property  of  others,  as  a 
bad  citizen  and  a  common  enemy."  In  short,  the  more 
vigorously  the  peasants  rebelled,  the  more  determinedly 
did  the  Assembly  entrench  itself  in  its  system. ^ 

On  some  minor  points  only  did  it  attempt  to  meet  the 
popular  demands.  The  decree  of  19  June  1790  which 
abolished  hereditary  nobiHty  also  forbade  the  use  of 
armorial  bearings  ;  that  of  13  April  1791  ordered  the 
seigneurs  to  withdraw  their  benches  from  the  churches 
within  two  months,  and  aboHshed  the  exclusive  right  to 
have  weather-cocks  on  their  houses  formerly  possessed  by 
them. 2  Thus,  the  honorific  privileges  of  the  nobility,  so 
irritating  to  the  peasants,  were  definitively  swept  away. 
But  only  one  concession  of  economic  importance  was 
made.  The  decree  of  14  November  1790  permitted  the 
vassals  on  Church  lands  which  had  become  the  property 
of  the  nation  to  redeem  the  annual,  separately  from  the 
casual  dues.  This  very  real  benefit  was  thus  confined 
to  a  minority  of  the  peasant-class.^ 

The  course  of  events  had  culminated  in  a  deadlock. 
The  peasants  were  determined  not  to  acquiesce  in  tEe 
maintenance  of  the  feudal  system;  the  Assembly  was 
equally  determined  not  to  modify  its  policy  in  any  serious 
fashion.  The  remainder  of  this  book  must  be  devoted 
to  showing  how  a  solution  of  the  problems  was  finally 

1  Aulard,  pp.  152-7.  « Ibid.  pp.  173-5. 

*  Ibid. -p.  188. 


THE  RURAL  REVOLUTION,  1790-1         175 

achieved ;  but  before  beginning  the  last  section  of  our 
narrative  two  points  of  interest  remain  to  be  discussed. 

M.  Aulard  has  urged  that  the  revolts  against  pay- 
ment of  the  feudal  dues  which  have  filled  so  large  a  place 
in  our  survey  of  the  years  1790  and  1791  were  exceptions, 
very  frequent  exceptions,  but  exceptions  nevertheless. 
His  view  seems  to  be  that  the  majority  of  the  peasants 
continued,  however  grudgingly,  to  fulfil  their  legal  obli- 
gations.^ To  disagree  with  so  eminent  an  authority  is  a 
proceeding  of  some  temerity,  and,  indeed,  as  M.  Aulard 
says,  the  means  which  would  enable  us  to  pronounce  a 
final  judgment  do  not  at  present  exist.  Only  a  tithe  of 
the  documents  received  by  the  feudal  Committee  has  been 
printed  ;  many  regional  historians  confine  themselves  to 
purely  political  events  and  leave  these  village  struggles 
unmentioned.  At  the  same  time,  the  evidence  brought 
together  in  these  pages,  incomplete  as  it  admittedly  is, 
can  hardly  be  held  to  point  to  M.  Aulard's  conclusion.  It 
is  apparent  that  few  regions  of  France  were  untroubled 
by  the  resistance,  more  or  less  violent,  of  the  peasants  to 
the  maintenance  of  the  feudal  system  ;  in  some  depart- 
ments that  resistance  seems  to  have  been  practically 
universal.  M.  Aulard  has  certainly  shown  that  the 
agents  of  one  great  nobleman,  the  Due  de  Cosse-Brissac, 
continued  to  collect  his  dues  at  least  until  July  1792,  but 
it  is  obvious  from  the  correspondence  which  estabUshes 
this  fact  that  much  resistance  was  encountered.^  It 
seems  probable,  then,  all  things  considered,  that  the  system 
of  agrarian  feudalism  was  pretty  thoroughly  under- 
mined by  the  direct  action  of  the  peasants  before  the 
^fate^sfepped  in  to  complete  its  overthrow  by  constitu- 
tionarmeans. 

One  consideration  which  may  be  held  to  point  to  a 
different  conclusion  must,  in  candour,  be  mentioned. 
M.  Aulard  has  proved  that  on  the  domains  which  passed 
from  the  hands  of  the  Church  to  those  of  the  State,  the 

'  Aulard,  p.  191.  •  Ibid.  pp.  192-8. 


176    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

feudal  rights  were  levied,  and  levied  with  much  vigour, 
until  the  complete  abolition  of  feudalism  in  1793.^  But 
the  importance  of  this  fact,  considerable  as  it  is,  must 
not  be  exaggerated.  It  is  difficult  to  arrive  at  a  trust- 
worthy estimate  of  the  amount  of  land  held  by  the  Church 
before  the  Revolution,  but  the  figures  quoted  above  from 
Loutchisky  suggest  that  it  was  much  smaller  than  is 
usually  supposed.  Only  a  minority,  and  probably  not 
a  large  minority,  of  the  peasants  can  have  been  affected 
by  the  change  of  ownership. 

Before  closing  this  chapter,  we  may  ask  what  pro- 
portion of  the  people  actually  redeemed  the  feudal  dues  ? 
The  matter  has  never  been  systematically  studied,  and  the 
facts  on  which  an  answer  can  be  based  are  few.  Such  as 
they  are,  however,  they  possess  considerable  interest. 
Many  of  the  purchasers  of  Church  property  did  redeem 
the  feudal  rights  which  weighed  upon  it.  In  the  depart- 
ment of  the  Yonne,  during  1791,  payments  for  this 
object  were  made  of  the  total  value  of  33,460  livres  ; 
from  I  January  to  25  August  1792,  44,044  livres 
were  received  in  the  same  area.^  From  6  October 
1790  to  15  October  1791,  the  revenue  from  this  source 
in  the  district  of  Aix  was  108,000  livres }  It  is'  probable 
that  the  comparative  frequency  of  redemptions  on  State 
property  was  due  (apart  from  the  effects  of  the  decree  of 
November  1790)  to  the  fact  that  much  of  it  was  pur- 
chased by  middle-class  townspeople  seeking  an  oppor- 
tunity for  investments,  who  had  both  the  will  and  the 
means  to  relieve  themselves  of  the  feudal  encumbrances. 
But  payments  to  former  seigneurs  seem  to  have  been^ew. 
In  Provence,  some  of  the  communities  purchased  the 
feudal  monopoHes  when  proper  titles  were  produced,  but 
"apart  from  this,"  says  M.  Viguier,  "the  redemptions 
were  null."  The  Directory  of  the  Bouches-du-Rhone 
made  vigorous  but  fruitless  efforts  to  persuade  the 
peasants  to  purchase.     When  the  commune  of  Istres 

1  Aulard,  chap.  v.  *  Ibid.  p.  i8j.  •  Viguier,  p.  262. 


THE  RURAL  REVOLUTION,  1790-1         177 

sought  permission  to  obtain  a  loan,  this  was  granted  on 
condition  that  the  first  use  made  of  the  money  should 
be  the  purchase  of  the  rights  of  the  former  lord.^  In 
December  1791,  the  active  citizens  of  Lourmarin,  in  the 
same  department,  declared  that  during  the  twenty-one 
months  which  had  elapsed  since  the  passing  of  the  decree 
on  feudahsm,  not  a  single  individual  had  purchased  the 
dues  with  which  he  was  burdened. ^  On  the  other  hand, 
a  certain  number  of  redemptions  did  take  place  in  Berry. ^ 

^  Viguier,  p.  261.  *  Sagnac  and  Caron,  p.  280. 

'  Bruneau,  p.  327. 


12 


CHAPTER   VII 

THE  END  OF  FEUDALISM 

IN  October  1791  the  National  Assembly  dissolved, 
and  was  replaced  by  the  Legislative,  the  first — and 
last — Parliament  to  be  elected  under  the  new  consti- 
tution. It  inherited  the  unsolved  problem  of  agrarian 
feudalism  from  its  predecessor,  a  fact  of  which  it  was  soon 
made  aware  by  the  new  avalanche  of  complaints  and 
protests  that  descended  on  it  from  the  rural  districts.l 
The  peasants  would  seem  to  have  regained  hope  when 
the  new  body  came  into  existence.  It  contained  none 
of  the  members  of  the  old  ;  it  had  been  elected  under  the 
constitution  which  had  been  represented  to  them  as  the 
greatest  of  benefits.  From  it,  some  reUef,  at  least,  might 
be  expected.  > 

The  documents  forwarded  to  the  Legislative  Assembly 
or  its  feudal  Committee  seldom  advance  other  arguments 
than  those  \vith  which  we  are  already  familiar  ;  there  is 
no  need,  therefore,  to  analyse  them  in  great  detail,  but 
many  contain  facts  and  proposals  for  reform  which  are 
worthy  of  notice.  A  study  of  them,  moreover,  makes  it 
clear  that  a  concerted  effort  was  organised  in  some  areas 
to  bring  the  pressure  of  opinion  to  bear  upon  the  new 
legislature.  Thus  we  find  no  less  than  six  letters,  written 
between  December  1791  and  June  1792,  by  official  bodies 
or  officers  of  the  Bouches-du-Rhone,  or  rather,  of  that 
part  of  it  which  is  now  included  in  the  department 
of  Vaucluse,    all    protesting    against    the    Constituent 

Assembly's  policy.     A  group  of  five  letters  had  its  origin 

178 


THE  END  OF  FEUDALISM  179 

in  the  Moselle,  but  one  of  these  is  the  joint  production  of 
six  municipalities.  In  both  these  instances  there  is  so 
much  similarity  between  the  documents,  both  as  regards 
phraseology  and  opinions,  that  it  is  difficult  to  deny  the 
existence  of  an  organised  agitation.  Again,  a  petition 
drawn  up  by  the  electors  of  Chateaubriant,  in  the 
Loire-Inferieure,  reached  the  Legislative's  Committee  on 
Petitions  with  an  additional  paragraph  stating  that  "  the 
undersigned  electors  and  inhabitants  of  the  department 
of  the  Correze,  having  taken  cognisance  of  the  remonstrance 
of  the  district  of  Chateaubriant,  approve  the  whole  of  its 
contents."  It  seems  clear  that  support  had  been  asked 
for,  and  in  tliis  case,  obtained.  No  estimate  can  at  present 
be  formed  as  to  the  extent  and  intensity  of  this  agitation, 
for  only  a  small  portion  of  the  documents  has  been 
printed  ;  ^  further  research  into  the  question  is  much  to 
be  desired. 

Turning  to  the  letters  and  petitions  themselves,  it 
will  be  convenient  to  begin  our  analysis  with  the  group 
from  the  Bouches-du-Rhone.  This  includes  six  docu- 
ments forwarded  by  the  following  communes  :  Lour- 
marin,  Saint-Saturnin,'  Villelaure,  Puivert,  La  Tour- 
d'Aigues,  and  La  Motte-d'Aigues.'  The  inhabitants 
and  municipal  officers  of  all  these  places  are  heartily  in 
agreement  as  to  the  inadequacy  of  the  existing  laws 
on  the  subject  of  the  feudal  rights  ;  they  criticise  the 
Constituent  Assembly  vigorously,  and  put  forsvard  con- 
crete proposals  for  reform.  "  There  exists  in  our  new 
laws  a  vice,  striking  but  unrecognised,  cursed  but  eluded, 
which  restricts  the  energy  of  the  rural  districts,  and  will 
be  an  eternal  cause  of  the  slavery  of  their  inhabitants 
so  long  as  they  are  not  delivered  from  it.     Do  not  hope 

*  Sagnac  and  Caron.  p.  xxii. 

*  An  additional  paragraph  to  this  letter  itates  that  the  citizens  o' 
Gargas  adhere  to  its  proposals. 

*  A  petition,  identical  in  terniB  with  thii.  wa«  lent  from  Cabriire»- 
d'Aigues.     See  Sagnac  and  Caron,  p.  448  nott. 


180     THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

to  see  liberty  take  root  and  fnictifj''  so  long  as  feudalism 
dominates.  .  .  ,  We  dare  to  assure  you  that  if  the 
Assembly  do  not  permit  us  to  redeem  the  fixed  rights 
separately  from  the  casual,  the  people  subjected  to  this 
frightful  system  will  be  dead  to  liberty  in  a  thousand 
years  from  now.  .  .  .  Almost  all  the  constituent  body 
was  composed  of  men  chosen  from  the  towns  .  .  .  and 
the  country,  ravaged  by  tasques,  champarts,  agriers,  lods, 
cens,  seigneurs,  agents,  rent-farmers,  guards,  was  for- 
gotten. No  one  spoke  on  its  behalf.  Legislators,  it  is 
tliis  all-powerful  cohort  which  still  holds  the  country 
people  in  chains  ;  it  is  these  ex-lords,  their  farmers  and 
agents,  who,  allied  with  the  non-juring  priests  and 
fanatics  of  all  kinds  .  .  .  kill  the  revolutionary  zeal  of 
the  simple  and  ignorant  peasants  by  making  them  foresee 
and  fear  the  return  of  the  ancient  order  of  things,  and 
with  it,  the  limitless  revenge  of  the  ci-devants  on  those 
who  have  taken  the  side  of  the  commonwealth.  .  .  . 
The  destruction  of  the  feudal  system  will  be  a  death-blow 
to  the  aristocrats  ;  it  is  with  the  hope  of  re-establishing 
it  that  they  emigrate,  conspire,  and  agitate  in  every 
way."  ^  Mention  of  the  emigrant  nobles  appears  in 
other  letters.  "The  return  of  these  despots,' who  for 
two  years  have  breathed  the  air  of  Germany,  Sardinia, 
Spain,  and  Italy,  so  fatal  to  liberty,  presages  vexations, 
injustices,  interminable  chicanery,  and  ruinous  law- 
suits." 2  "  We  no  longer  have  a  seigneur,  he  is  at 
Coblenz  ;  he  has  left  behind  an  agent,  and  a  farmer  who 
harasses  and  inquiets  us  as  before  the  Revolution."  ^ 
The  greatest  emphasis,  however,  is  laid  on  the  insuffici- 
ency of  the  decrees  of  1790.  "  The  Constituent  Assembly 
.  .  .  overthrew  the  monuments  of  servitude  and  despotism 
which  covered  the  soil  of  the  French  empire  ;  it  cut  off  at 
the  foot  the  great  tree  of  feudalism  which  overshadowed 
the    countryside,    but     the    roots    remain    and     may 

^  Sagnac  and  Caron,  pp.  280-1.  *  Ibid.  p.  279. 

•  Ibid.  p.  296. 


THE  END  OF  FEUDALISM  181 

throw  out  new  branches.  Our  descendants,  when  they 
read  in  our  subhme  constitution  that  the  feudal  system 
is  abohshed,  will  be  surprised  to  find  its  traces  every- 
where. .  .  .  The  defenders  of  feudalism  have  established 
a  system,  e\idently  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  the  law, 
which  may  be  adopted  by  the  tribunals  and  will  render 
the  feudal  system  indestructible.  They  pretend  that 
all  the  clauses  of  a  primordial  title  are  correlative  and 
inseparably  bound  up  with  one  another,  and  they  con- 
clude that  it  is  sufficient  for  a  monopoly  to  have  been  estab- 
lished by  an  act  which  mentions  a  concession  of  land  or 
of  rights  of  usage  for  it  to  be  an  appendage  of  those  con- 
cessions, and,  as  such,  excepted  from  suppression.  Whence 
it  follows  that  the  monopoly,  which  is  one  of  the  most 
personal  of  servitudes  and  weighs  most  heavily  upon  the 
people,  becomes  indestructible,  because  the  monopolies 
are  all  established  by  primordial  titles."  ^  "  We  be- 
lieved ourselves  free  in  our  properties  as  in  our  persons 
after  the  decree  which  suppressed  the  feudal  regime  ; 
the  experience  of  two  years  has  proved  to  us  that  we  a^ 
still  slaves."  * 


The  principal  reforms  demanded  by  the  inhabitants 


of  this  group  of  communes  are  as  follows  :   (i)  Liberty 
to  redeem  the  annual  dues,  such  as  the  tasques  and  cham- 
parts,  separately  from  the  casual,  such  as  the  lods  et 
ventes  ;    {2)  the  casual  dues  to  be  purchased  collectively    \ 
by  the  communes  ;    (3)  the  proprietors  of  houses  not  to   ^ 
be  obliged   to   redeem   the   casual   dues,   but    only  the     ) 
annual  ccns  ;    (4)   in   communes   where   the  inhabitants 
pay  tasques  or  similar  rights,  the  feudal  monopoUes  to 
be  suppressed  without  indemnity.  ^ 

The  group  of  documents  from  the  Moselle  contains 
five  letters  which  express  the  views  of  ten  municipal 
bodies.  MM.  Sagnac  and  Caron  mention  the  existence 
of  two  other  petitions  from  the  same  region,  which  brings 

*  Sagnac  and  Caron,  pp.  292-3. 

•  Ibid.  p.  293. 


182     THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

the  total  of  protesting  communities  to  twelve.^  These 
protests  from  Lorraine  do  not  differ  fundamentally  from 
those  of  Provence ;  both  groups  agree  in  denouncing 
the  work  of  the  Constituent  as  ill-done,  and  as  having 
deceived  the  expectations  aroused  by  the  decree  of 
4  August  ;  they  agree  also  in  the  declaration  that 
redemption  is  impossible  on  the  lines  laid  down  by  the 
law.  There  is  the  same  insistence,  too,  on  the  fact  that 
unless  the  Legislative  acts,  and  speedily,  feudalism  will 
be  perpetuated  and  the  support  of  the  peasants  lost  to 
the  Revolution.  But  it  will  be  best  to  let  the  com- 
munities speak  for  themselves. 

,  "The  legal  disputes  occasioned  by  the  law  of  the 
15th  March  i7|o  are  innumerable,"  say  the  inhabitants 
of  GuerstHng  ;  ■  "  they  ruin  all  proprietors  who  owed 
feudal  dues.  These  odious  rights  appeared  to  be  abol- 
ished by  the  famous  decree  of  the  4th  August  1789,  now 
they  flourish  more  than  ever.  Formerly,  they  were  only 
doubtful,  now  they  become  certain,  since  the  proprietor 
is  obliged  to  prove  that  they  are  not  derived  from  a 
concession  of  land.  But  the  proprietor,  who  has  never 
been  the  holder  of  the  lord's  titles,  finds  it  impossible  to 
furnish  proof  of  the  contrary.  All  verdicts  are  conse- 
quently given  in  favour  of  the  former  seigneur.  .  .  .  The 
greatest  disorders  are  the  result  ;  public  spirit  evaporates, 
the  love  of  country  diminishes,  the  paj^ment  of  taxes 
falls  off,  especially  the  land-tax,  which,  because  of  these 
rents,  dues,  champaris,  third  pennies,  and  other  feudal 
rights,  proven  or  non-proven,  is  so  neglected  that  it  finds 
insurmountable  hindrances  in  every  municipality."  ^ 
"Legislators,  we  know  no  sovereign  to-day  but  the  nation, 
which  alone  has  the  right  to  impose  pecuniary  and  other 
charges  upon  us  ;  its  needs  are  ours,  and  we  hasten 
zealously  to  supply  them.  Uproot  by  a  salutary  law 
the  remains  of  ancient  despotism,  which  consist  particu- 
larly in  rents  and  other  rights  not  founded  upon  authentic 

^  Sagnac  and  Caron,  pp.  309  and  312  notes.  *  Ibid.  p.  307. 


THE  END  OF  FEUDALISM  188 

titles,  which  will  always  remind  us  of  our  old  state  of 
servitude."  ^ 

A  document  signed  by  the  representatives  of  six 
municipaUties  is  perhaps  the  most  interesting,  certainly 
the  most  eloquent  of  all.  It  is  worth  quoting  at  some 
length. 

"  Yes,  Legislators,  under  the  reign  of  liberty,  feudal- 
ism exercises  its  empire  and  its  ravages  with  more  audacity 
than  ever  ;  the  law  of  March  1790,  it  is  true,  reserved  to 
the  vassal  the  right  of  proving  that  the  rights  with  which 
he  is  charged  are  not  the  price  of  a  concession  of  land. 
But  the  means  of  furnishing  this  proof  ?  Have  the 
tyrants  who  for  so  long  have  desolated  and  withered  the 
human  race  ever  had  other  titles  than  force  and  despotism  ? 
Past  generations  were  witnesses  of  the  violence  by  which 
these  rights  were  estabhshed,  and  if  they  rose  from  the 
tomb  they  would  bring  proofs  of  the  feudal  despotism 
whose  first  victims  they  were.  But  we  who  know  the 
tyrannical  origin  of  these  rights  only  by  tradition,  we  have 
no  other  titles  to  prove  their  injustice  than  the  history 
of  their  vexations  that  our  ancestors  have  transmitted 
to  us. 

"  Legislators,  we  have  sworn  to  live  free  or  die  ;  we 
have  not  taken  this  oath  in  vain.  We  demand  complete 
liberty,  not  only  for  our  persons  but  for  our  properties. 
Tear  up  the  roots  of  the  feudalism  that  the  law  of  the 
month  of  March  wished  to  preserve  ;  its  yoke  grows  more 
insupportable  to  us  every  day.  Increase  our  taxes,  but 
free  our  lands  from  these  servitudes  which  wound  the 
pride  of  a  free  people.  .  .  .  For  four  years  scarcely  any 
of  the  dues  have  been  acquitted.  The  enemies  of  our 
freedom  witness  the  cultivator's  security  with  an  evil  joy  ; 
they  see  his  debts  accumulate,  they  will  press  for  them 
in  the  circumstances  they  consider  most  favourable,  and 
what  neither  their  intrigues  nor  their  seductions  have 
been  able  to  accomplish  up  to  the  present,  they  flatter 
'  Sagnac  and  Caroa,  p.  309. 


184     THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

themselves  his  poverty  or  his  discontent  will  achieve,  and 
will  lead  him  back  to  the  chains  he  has  broken."  ^ 

The  programme  of  reforms  put  forward  by  these 
communities  of  the  Moselle  differs  from  that  of  the 
Bouches-du-Rhone  ;  there  is  no  question  of  the  separation 
of  the  annual  from  the  casual  dues  in  the  scheme  of  redemp- 
tion, or  of  the  feudal  monopohes.  What  they  demand 
is  that  the  law  of  March  1790  be  amended  so  that  the  onus 
of  producing  a  proper  title  shall  be  placed  upon  the  seig- 
neur, and  that  the  redemption  of  rights  legally  justified  be 
undertaken  by  the  State.  The  peasants  in  1789  had,  as 
we  have  seen,  only  envisaged  individual  enfranchisements; 
hard  experience  had  evidently  converted  those  of  Lorraine 
and  Provence  to  a  collective  operation,  whether  national 
or  communal. 

From  the  extreme  East  we  may  turn  to  the  West,  from 
the  Moselle  to  the  Loire-Inferieure.  The  demands  of  the 
district  of  Chateaubriant  strike  a  much  more  radical  note 
than  any  we  have  heard  hitherto,  for  they  amount  to 
nothing  less  than  the  suppression  of  the  feudal  rights 
en  masse  and  without  indemnity.  The  argument  put 
forward  is  simple  and  sweeping.  "  The  feudal  tents  are 
the  fruit  of  tyranny  "  ;  they  were  violently  imposed  by 
the  strong  upon  the  weak  in  an  age  of  anarchy.  No 
lapse  of  time  can  sanctify  usurpation,  "  an  iniquitous  law 
can  never  prescribe  against  the  rights  of  man."  Unjust 
in  their  origin,  these  rights  were  not  transmissible.  If 
anyone  has  a  claim  to  compensation,  it  is  the  unhappy 
vassals  who  have  supported  them  so  long.  "  If  these 
so-called  lords  dare  to  claim  an  indemnity,  we  shall  reply 
to  them  :  You  obtained  it,  this  indemnity,  in  immunity 
from  the  hearth-tax  that  you  ought  to  have  shared  with 
us,  the  burden  of  which  you  threw  upon  us,  with  a 
most  shameful  perfidy,  for  more  than  a  hundred  years ; 
you  obtained  it  in  the  unjust  partition  that  you  made  of 
other  pubhc  charges  ;    you  obtained  it  in  the  privileges 

1  Sagnac  and  Caron,  p.  311. 


THE  END  OF  FEUDALISM  185 

that  you  arrogated  to  yourselves  to  the  detriment  of  the 
people,  in  the  pecuniary  exemptions  that  you  extorted 
for  your  persons  and  your  properties  to  the  oppression  of 
the  people,  in  the  franchises  that  you  enjoyed,  you  and 
your  servants,  in  contempt  of  the  justice  and  equahty 
established  by  Nature  ;  you  obtained  it  in  the 
pensions  that  burdened  the  people  and  exhausted  the 
finances,  in  the  exclusive  right  of  possessing  lucrative 
ofi&ces  and  employments  in  which  we  should  have 
served  the  State  much  more  usefully  than  you ;  you 
obtained  it  by  the  sale  of  the  woods  that  our  fathers 
planted  on  the  commons  that  you  usurped,  by  the 
exorbitant  fines  that  you  demanded  when  we  were  forced 
to  lease  from  you  lands  that  were  our  own.  ..." 

Even  if  compensation  were  just,  the  peasant  is  unable 
to  provide  it  ;  if  he  redeemed  the  dues  he  would  only 
make  bad  worse.  "  Must  the  unhappy  vassal  sell  one 
half  of  the  little  heritage  of  his  fathers  to  free  the  other 
from  slavery  and  oppression  ?  But  to  whom  could  he 
sell  this  portion  of  his  patrimony  ?  To  the  so-called 
lords,  to  those  ancient  tyrants  ;  they  alone,  by  the 
redemption  of  the  feudal  dues,  will  become  the  deposi- 
tories of  all  the  money  in  France,  and  will  concentrate 
all  its  riches  in  their  hands.  By  that  means,  they  will 
treble  their  proud  opulence  ;  by  that  means,  they  will 
extend  their  possessions  and  render  themselves  masters 
of  all  property  ;  by  that  means,  they  will  aggravate  the 
yoke  of  ancient  servitude  under  which  our  fathers 
groaned,  and  for  which  we  still  blush  to-day."  *  That 
these  revolutionary  views  found  favour  elsewhere  than 
in  Brittany  is  shown  by  the  cordial  approval  given  to 
this  passionate  piece  of  denunciation  by  162  citizens  and 
electors  of  the  Corrdze. 

Three  documents  from  the  South-West  (two  from  the 
Lot-et-Garonne  and  one  from  the  Gironde)  expose  views 
very  similar  to  those  put  forward  by  the  municipalities 

*  Sagnac  and  Caron,  pp.  286-9. 


186     THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

of  the  Moselle.  They  demand,  in  the  first  place,  a  justifi- 
cation of  the  seigneurial  rights  by  the  exhibition  of 
adequate  titles  ;  and,  secondly,  the  collective  purchase  of 
legal  rights  by  the  nation.^  It  is  worth  noting,  in  passing, 
that  the  inhabitants  of  Fumel  (Lot-et-Garonne)  declare 
that  scarcely  any  rents  have  been  paid  for  three  years.  A 
petition  from  the  Loiret  sets  out  a  much  more  detailed  list 
of  suggestions  for  reform,  which  seems,  as  we  shall  see  in 
the  sequel,  to  have  had  a  very  real  influence  on  the  work 
of  the  Legislative.  The  reforms  proposed  are  as  follows  : 
(i)  The  casual  rights  to  be  suppressed  without  indemnity  ; 
(2)  all  seigneurs  to  be  called  upon  to  justify  their  rights 
by  the  production  of  original  titles  within  two  months, 
failing  which,  they  lose  all  claim  to  them  ;  (3)  proprietors 
of  rights  of  champart  to  collect  their  share  of  the  harvest 
themselves  ;  (4)  until  all  titles  have  been  produced  and 
verified,  all  legal  processes  on  the  subject  to  cease  ;  (5) 
seigneurs  who  are  found  to  have  levied  dues  without 
adequate  title,  to  refund  them  for  twenty-nine  years." 
Other  documents  that  we  possess,  from  the  Basses- 
Pyrenees,  the  Charente,  Calvados,  and  the  Var,  present 
no  special  features,  and  need  not,  therefore,  be  examined 
in  detail. 

We  find,  then,  in  the  early  months  of  1792,  not  only 
general  discontent  with  the  decrees  of  the  Constituent 
Assembly,  but  a  vigorous  attempt  to  bring  moral  pressure 
to^bear  upon  its  successor.  The  peasants  formulate  their 
demands  with  increased  precision,  and  stress  the  injury 
done  to  the  cause  of  the  Revolution,  menaced  as  it  is,  both 
at  home  and  abroad,  by  the  continuance  of  agrarian 
unrest. 

But,  as  in  1791,  large  sections  of  the  peasants  were  not 
content  with  moral  pressure,  with  petitions  and  remon- 
strances ;  of  these  they  evidently  thought  there  had  been 
enough.     They  betook  themselves  to  action  instead.     It 

1  Sagnac  and  Caron,  pp.  297,  300,  and  303. 
«/6tfl?.  p.  315. 


THE  END  OF  FEUDALISM  187 

is  a  sign  of  the  growing  popular  exasperation  that  the 
deeds  of  violence  committed  at  this  period  were  more 
serioiis  in  character  than  most  of  those  of  the  two  pre- 
ceding years  ;  the  rioters  no  longer  burn  church  benches 
but  chateaux.  Scenes  similar  to  those  of  1789  were 
enacted  in  several  provinces. 

Disturbances  in  the  Lot  began  again  with  the  new 
year  ;  indeed,  they  may  be  said  never  to  have  ceased  in 
that  stormy  region.  In  January,  February,  and  March, 
six  chateaux  were  destroyed  or  pillaged  ;  there  were, 
moreover,  riots  at  Figeac,  Souillac,  and  Lauzerte.  In 
April,  conditions  seem  to  have  worsened.  A  letter  from 
the  Directory  of  the  department  describes  the  district  of 
Figeac  as  a  prey  to  fresh  disorders.  All  the  houses  of 
ex-nobles  have  been  burnt,  pigeon-cotes  have  been 
forcibly  destroyed,  and  all  the  country  houses  of  any 
importance  threatened.  Another  report  from  the  same 
body  declares  that  the  inhabitants  of  the  rural  parishes 
have  organised,  marched  (with  the  municipal  officers  at  the 
head  of  them)  on  the  houses  of  the  former  seigneurs,  the 
rent-farmers  or  tithe-owners,  and  have  "  forced  them  to 
repay  the  rents  and  tithes  of  1789  and  the  arrears  for 
twenty-nine  years."  The  Directory  was  obliged  to  send 
commissioners  to  pacify  the  people.^  Towards  the  end  of 
March,  the  district  of  Aurillac,  in  Auvergne,  was  swept 
by  a  band  of  National  Guards,  who  passed  from  manor- 
house  to  manor-house,  burning  and  destroying  as  they 
went.  This  participation  in  insurrection  of  the  authorised 
defenders  of  order  was  a  serious  sign.*  In  the  department 
of  the  Gard,  the  war  was  carried  on  with  unparalleled 
violence.  On  i  April,  the  chateaux  at  Aubais,  Auj- 
argues,  and  Gallargues  were  sacked  ;  at  the  last-named 
place  the  National  Guards  showed  sympathy  with  the 
incendiaries.  On  the  2nd,  seven  chateaux  were  attacked, 
and  it  is  interesting  to  note  that  at  Souvignargues  the 
peasants  threatened  to  hang  anyone  who  used  the  oppor- 

*  AuUrd,  pp.  137-8.  •  Serree,  vol.  iv. 


188     THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

tunity  to  steal.  On  the  3rd  and  4th,  twelve  more  manor- 
houses  went  up  in  flames.  All  this,  it  must  be  observed, 
was  in  a  single  district  of  the  department.  In  others, 
similar  occurrences  took  place  ;  there  were  many  cases 
of  forced  renunciations  of  rights,  and  the  National  Guards 
were  active  on  the  side  of  the  insurrection.  In  the  district 
of  Beaucaire,  at  Montfrin  and  other  places,  the  peasants 
seized  upon  and  distributed  lands  which  belonged  to 
former  nobles.^  The  movement  ran  like  wildfire  all  over 
the  department  throughout  the  greater  part  of  April ;  the 
historian  of  these  events  notes  that  the  names  of  its 
leaders  were  "  generally  those  of  the  most  substantial 
men  in  the  neighbourhood."  ^ 

Harassed  by  petitions,  its  authority  threatened  by 
insurrections  which  recalled  by  their  violence  the  wild 
summer  of  1789,  the  Legislative  Assembly  was  at  last 
compelled  to  act.  Unless  France,  menaced  as  it  was 
from  without,  was  to  fall  a  prey  to  anarchy  within,  some 
real  concessions  must  be  made  to  the  demands  of  the 
peasant  class,  without  the  support  of  which  the  Revolu- 
tion could  not  hope  to  triumph  over  its  enemies  at  honie 
and  abroad.^  The  Legislative,  following  the  example  of  its 
predecessor,  had  appointed  a  feudal  Committee,  and  this, 
through  the  mouth  of  Lautour-Duchatel,  reported  on  11 
April  1792.  This  report  initiated  a  series  of  debates  which 
culminated  in  a  decree,  passed  on  18  June.  The  domi- 
nant note  in  these  discussions  was  struck  by  Dorliac, 
of  the  Haute-Garonne  ;  for  him,  the  feudal  rights  were 
the  fruit  of  usurpation,  due  to  the  sovereignty  which 
the  lords  had  acquired  by  force. ^  This  doctrine  reversed 
entirely  the  system  on  which  the  National  Assembly  had 
based  its  legislation  ;  the  decrees  of  1790  had  assumed 
the  legitimacy  of  the  feudal  dues,  certain  minor  exceptions 
apart,  and  had  placed  on  the  vassal  the  onus  of  showing 
that  they  were  unjustified  and  illegal.     In  the  debates  of 

^  Rouvi^re,  vol.  ii.  p.  207.  2  Ibid.  vol.  ii.  p.  283. 

'  Sagnac,  p.  139. 


THE  END  OF  FEUDALISM  189 

the  Legislative  this  point  of  view  found  few  defendjis  ; 
it  was  rather  the  practical  details  raised  by  its  reversal 
which  were  in  question.  But  above  all  such  issues 
loomed  the  urgent  necessity  for  action.  The  national 
interests  were  in  conflict  with  those  of  a  privileged 
minority  ;  if  the  second  prevailed  at  the  expense  of  the 
first,  the  Revolution  was  lost  and  France  with  it.  "  It  is 
not  a  question,"  cried  Oudot,  "  of  considering  the  interests 
of  a  few  individuals,  but  of  the  destiny  of  a  whole  people." 
"  The  former  seigneurs  will  complain,"  said  MaiUie,  "  but 
of  what  do  they  not  complain  ?  You  will  be  absolved  by 
the  benedictions  of  ninety-nine  hundredths  of  the  present 
generation  and  those  of  generations  to  come."  ^  Driven 
on  by  such  considerations,  the  Legislative  struck  first  at 
the  casual  dues. 

The  opening  article  of  the  decree  declares  that  "  all 
casual  rights,  and  all  those  representative  of  them,  known 
by  the  names  of  quint,  requint,  treizieme,  lods  et  ventes, 
tnilods,  r achats,  reliefs  .  .  .  acapte,  arriere-acapte  .  .  ., 
which  are  levied  because  of  mutations  of  property,  or  the 
possession  of  land,  on  the  buyer,  the  seller,  the  donors,  the 
heirs  .  .  .  are,  and  remain,  suppressed  without  indemnity, 
unless  the  said  rights  are  proved,  by  the  primitive  title 
of  infeudation,  to  be  the  price  and  condition  of  a  con- 
cession of  the  lands  for  which  they  were  levied,  in  which 
case  the  said  dues  shall  continue  to  be  collected  and  to  be 
redeemable." 

This  provision  made  an  immense  breach  in  the  edifice 
laboriously  erected  by  the  National  Assembly  in  1790. 
The  situations  of  seigneur  and  vassal  as  fixed  by  the  earlier 
decrees  were  completely  reversed.  It  was  no  longer  the 
debtor  but  the  creditor  who  was  compelled  to  justify 
his  rights,  and  to  justify  them  by  the  original  docu- 
ments. The  peasants  had  gained  their  cause  at  last  ; 
recognitions,  perhaps  extorted  by  violence  and  chicanery, 
were  no  longer  to  suffice.  Feudalism  was  put  upon  the 
*  Sagnac,  pp.  140  and  142. 


190    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

defensive,  thrust  into  a  position  where  its  ultimate  ex- 
tinction was  inevitable. 

The  other  articles  of  the  decree  need  not  detain  us  ; 
for  the  most  part,  they  were  devoted  to  regularising  the 
position  of  those  who  had  purchased  land  from  the 
nation,  which  was  burdened  with  casual  dues.  The  last 
clause,  however,  is  of  some  importance,  as  it  put  a  stop 
to  all  lawsuits  actually  in  progress  which  had  arisen 
from  disputes  over  the  class  of  rights  now  abohshed 
without  compensation. 

The  pressure  of  events  prevented  the  Legislative 
from  following  up  its  work  immediately.  But  a  few 
days  after  the  revolution  of  lo  August  had  decided 
the  fate  of  the  monarchy,  it  fell  furiously  to  work  again, 
and,  by  its  decrees  of  20  and  25  August,  struck  two 
more  deadly  blows  at  feudalism. 

These  decrees  contain  some  fifty  clauses,  and  only 
a  summary  analysis  can  be  given  here.  That  of  20 
August  included  the  following  important  provisions  : 
(i)  The  annual  rights  could  henceforward  be  redeemed 
separately  from  the  casual  when  these  had  been  proved 
legitimate,  that  is,  as  arising  from  a  concession  of  land, 
by  the  exhibition  of  the  original  title.  The  casual  rights 
could  also  be  redeemed  separately  from  one  another  ;  (2) 
holders  of  land  could  call  upon  the  proprietor  of  either 
class  of  rights  to  prove  their  legitimacy  by  producing  his 
title.  If  he  failed  to  do  this  within  three  months  of  the 
summons  the  holder  was  enfranchised  from  them  in 
perpetuity  ;  ^  (3)  proprietors  of  land  burdened  with  the 
champart  or  dues  similar  in  character,  or  with  infeudated 
tithes,  could  demand  their  conversion  into  a  fixed  annual 
rent  in  corn.  The  amount  of  this  was  to  be  decided  by 
arbitrators  on  the  basis  of  the  average  yearly  production 
of  the  land  in  question  ;  (4)  all  solidarity  in  payments 
was  abohshed  without  indemnity,  even  for  arrears  of  dues. 
Henceforward,  any  one  of  the  co-debtors  would  be  free 

*  Cf.  thii  claus*  with  the  demands  of  the  Loiret,  p.  186  above. 


THE  END  OF  FEUDALISM  19\^ 

to  redeem  himself  at  will,  irrespective  of  the  action  of 
his  fellows  ;  (5)  for  the  future,  there  would  be  prescrip- 
tion of  arrears  of  feudal  rents  of  all  species  after  five 
years  ;  those  who  owed  arrears  for  the  years  1789,  1790, 
and  1791,  could  free  themselves  by  three  successive 
annual  payments. 

It  will  be  seen  that  this  decree  instituted  some  im- 
portant reforms,  both  in  regard  to  the  feudal  rights  and 
the  manner  of  their  redemption  ;  still,  it  cannot  be  said 
to  have  gone  to  the  root  of  the  matter.  Had  the  legis- 
lators held  their  hands  at  this  point,  the  lot  of  the  peasant 
class  as  a  whole  would  have  been  improved,  and  its 
wealthier  members  would  have  been  helped  to  liberate 
their  lands  ;  but  agrarian  feudahsm  would  still  have 
remained  a  powerful  influence  in  the  economic  life  of 
France.  To  that  condition  of  affairs  it  was  certain  that 
the  peasants  would  not  submit.  Having  gone  so  far,.the 
Legislative  w-as  inevitably^driven  to  go  farther. 

The  decree  of  25  August  was  passed  under  a  motion 
of  urgency,  but  there  is  nothing  vague  or  indefinite  about 
its  provisions.  Its  very  preamble  strikes  a  revolu- 
tionary note.  "  The  National  Assembly,  considering 
that  the  feudal  sj^stem  is  abolished,  that  nevertheless  it 
subsists  in  its  effects,  and  that  nothing  is  more  urgent 
than  to  cause  to  disappear  from  French  territory 
those  vestiges  of  servitude  which  cover  and  devour  pro- 
perties .  .  .  decrees  as  follows."  The  articles  of  the  law 
did  not  contradict  this  statement  of  motives  ;  they  did 
for  the  annual  dues  what  the  measure  of  the  previous 
June  had  done  for  the  casual.  Their  principal  effects 
may  be  summarised  thus  :  (i)  All  landed  property  was 
rejpju^ed  free  from  feudal  claims  unless  they  could  be 
shown  to  originate  in  a  concession  of  land  ;  the  effects  of 
the  maxim  "  No  land  without  a  lord,"  in  so  far  as  they 
were  expressed  in  statutes,  customs,  and  rules,  whether 
general  or  particular,  were  to  cease  to  exist.  As  a  neces- 
sary consequence,     (2)  all  feudal    rights  were   declared 


192     THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

abolished  without  indemnity  unless  they  could  be  clearly 
proved  to  derive  from  a  concession  of  lajid,  such  proof 
to  be  the  production  of  the  original  title.  (3)  All  acts  of 
enfranchisement  from  mainmorte,  hordelage,  and  quevaise, 
together  with  all  dues  replacing  such  servitudes,  were 
revoked  and  annulled  without  indemnity  ;  all  lands  ceded 
by  communities  or  individuals  as  the  price  of  enfranchise- 
ment from  such  tenures  still  in  the  hands  of  the  former 
lords  were  to  revert  to  those  who  had  ceded  them,  and 
no  sums  of  money,  promised  for  the  same  purpose  but  not 
actually  paid  at  the  date  of  the  decree,  could  be  demanded 
in  the  future  ;  (4)  rights  justified  by  the  original  titles 
were  to  remain  redeemable  ;  (5)  arrears  of  dues  sup- 
pressed without  indemnity  were  not  to  be  collected, 
and  all  civil  processes  in  progress  relating  to  such  dues 
were  brought  summarily  to  an  end. 

The  wheel  had  swung  full  circle  ;  the  poHcy  of  the 
first  revolutionary  legislature  was  completely  reversed. 
Unless  the  seigneurs  could  produce  evidence,  which  the 
mass  of  thein  probably  did  not  possess,  to  justify  then; 
rights,  those  rights  were  pitilessly  swept  away  without 
compensation  or  relief.  The  expression  "a  St.  Bartho- 
lomew of  property  "  has  been  applied  to  the  decree  of 
4  August  1789  ;  it  would  be  much  more  appropriate 
to  that  of  25  August  1792.  In  the  three  years 
which  separated  the  two  decrees,  France  had  moved 
fast  and  far,  as  the  provisions  of  the  second  sufficiently 
prove.  The  Revolution  had  ceased  to  be  predominantly 
political  and  administrative,  and  had  become  what  the 
peasants  from  the  first  had  wished  it  to  be,  namely, 
■  social..  In  that  torrid  and  blood-stained  August,  not  only 
a  monarchy  but  a  social  order  passed  definitively  away. 

We  may,  perhaps,  import  a  touch  of  fancy  into  the 
history  of  this  conflict  and  look  at  it  from  another  stand- 
point. The  victory  of  the  system  of  the  Legislative — 
which  was  also  the  system  of  the  peasants — over  that  of 
the  Constituent  Assembly,  might  not  unfairly  be  described 


THE  END  OF  FEUDALISM  193 

as  a  victory  of  the  written,  the  Roman  law  and  juris- 
prudence, over  the  feudal  and  customary.  The  decrees 
of  1790  were,  in  fact  though  not  in  words,  based  on  the 
legal  maxim,  "  No  land  without  a  lord  "  ;  freedom  from 
seigneurial  obUgations  was  to  be  the  exception,  servitude 
of  the  soil  the  rule.  The  legislators  of  1792  abohshed 
that  maxim  and  its  consequences ;  the  effect  of  their 
decrees  was  to  make  the  counter-maxim  of  the  written 
law — "  No  lord  without  a  title  " — the  common  rule. 
Once  more  Rome  triumphed  over  the  barbarians,  the 
Gallo-Roman  took  his  revenge  upon  the  invading  Frank. 
France,  in  her  hour  of  need,  was  presently  to  revert  to 
those  poUtical  forms  which  are  as  old  as  our  civilisation 
— the  RepubUc  and  the  Dictatorship  ;  that  reversion 
was  aheady  foreshadowed  in  the  victory  of  the  Roman 
jurisprudence. 

With  one  subject  the  decrees  of  20  and  25  August 
did  not  deal,  that  is,  with  the  still  burning  question 
of  the  common  lands.  The  omission  was  speedily 
supplied.  On  the  night  of  the  28th,  Mailhe  proposed  a 
measure  which  was  straightway  carried.^  It  was  as 
drastic  as  its  predecessors.  The  article  of  the  ordinance 
of  1669  which  had  authorised  the  triages,  as  well  as  "  all 
edicts,  declarations,  Orders  in  Council,  and  letters- 
patent,"  subsequently  rendered,  were  repealed;  if  the 
properties  of  which  the  communes  had  been  dispossessed 
were  still  in  the  hands  of  the  seigneurs,  they  could  be 
reclaimed  within  five  years  without  indemnity.  In  the 
same  way  the  communes  could  recover  any  property  in 
rights  of  usage  of  which  they  had  been  despoiled  unless 
theTord  were  able  to  show  that  he  had  acquired  them 
by  legal  purchase.  Further,  even  if  the  communes  could 
not  prove  that  they  had  formerly  owned  any  commons, 
wastes,  or  landes  which  might  exist  within  their  borders, 
they  could  now  claim  ownership  of  them  unless  the  former 

*  For  the  history  and  text  of  this  decree,  see  Bourgin,  p.  398  et  seq. 
Kropotkin's  account,  p.  418,  is  in  error  on  this  point. 


194  THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

seigneur  were  able  to  show  an  adequate  title,  or  prove 
that  he  had  been  in  peaceable  and  uncontested  possession 
of  them  for  forty  years.  The  history  of  the  application 
of  this  decree  and  its  economic  results  has  not  yet  been 
written  ;  if  the  village  communities  used  the  opportunity 
it  gave  them  to  any  considerable  extent,  serious  inroads 
must  undoubtedly  have  been  made  upon  seigneurial 
property. 

'  The  feudal  system  was  in  ruins  ;  M.  Aulard's  estimate 
that  a  quarter  of  the  rights  remained  in  existence  is  a 
generous  one.  The  drastic  character  of  the  new  legis- 
lation, and  the  real  improvement  that  it  caused  in  the 
peasant's  lot,  is  shown  by  the  almost  complete  cessation 
of  disturbances  in  the  rural  districts.'  The  peace  was 
not  absloute,  however  ;  a  letter  from  the  Directory  of 
the  district  of  Gourdon,  dated  5  December  1792,  shows 
that  the  stubborn  men  of  the  Lot  were  still  carrying  on 
the  agrarian  war.  "  The  woods  of  the  former  seigneurs 
of  Vaillac  and  Saint -Chamerand  have  been  devastated 
and  cut  down  ;  those  of  the  Sieur  Durfort,  in  the  commune 
of  Saint -Germain,  are  ravaged  daily,  and  the  brigands 
have  even  seized  the  chateau  of  Sept-Fons,  demolished 
the  barns,  and  threatened  that  when  this  operation  is  fin- 
ished they  will  lay  hands  upon  the  houses  and  properties 
of  other  rich  citizens  of  this  canton.  ,  .  .  We  fear  lest  the 
evil  go  from  bad  to  worse,  and  the  wrong-doers,  finding 
themselves  in  force,  prepare  insurrections  similar  to  those 
of  1790."  ^  It  seems  probable  from  the  wording  of 
this  document,  that  the  peasants  were  attacking,  or 
threatening  to  attack,  bourgeois  landowners  as  well  as 
ex-nobles.  A  letter  written  by  Garat,  the  Minister  of 
Justice,  and  dated  21  December,  suggests  that  the 
troubles  were  not  confined  to  the  Lot.  "Feudalism  is 
abolished,"  it  says,  "  but  while  proscribing  this  odious 
regime,  the  nation  has  not  yet  destroyed  all  the  traces 
left  behind  by  this  monstrous  abuse.     A  profound  sense 

^  Aulard,  pp.  139-40. 


THE  END  OF  FEUDALISM  195 

of  the  injustices  they  have  suffered  exists  in  the  hearts 
of  the  rural  masses,  and  culpable  conspirators  profit  by 
these  resentments,  that  time  alone  can  efface,  to  remind 
them  of  the  prosecutions  they  have  undergone  for  alleged 
breaches  of  the  game  laws,  the  guns  that  have  been  taken 
from  them,  the  fines  to  which  they  have  been  unjustly 
condemned,  the  sums  of  money  extorted  from  them  .  .  . 
the  pubhc  ways  invaded,  a  host  of  other  usurpations 
committed,  in  a  word,  of  the  vexations  of  all  kinds  to 
which  the  most  precious  citizens  of  the  RepubHc  were  too 
long  exposed."  The  agitators  are  stirring  up  the  peasants 
to  seek  recompense  by  Ndolent  acts.  "  These  perfidious 
insinuations  have  been  only  too  successful ;  already,  on 
the  pretext  of  indemnifying  themselves  for  the  wrongs 
they  have  suffered,  ancient  victims  of  feudalism  are 
rising  and  committing  outrages.  Already,  from  several 
parts  of  the  Republic,  complaints  are  heard."  ^ 

It  is  extremely  likely  that  the  peasants,  being  rid  of 
the  greater  part  of  the  feudal  burden,  were  all  the  more 
Irritated  against  that  which  remained.  In  any  case, 
during  the  great  crisis  of  the  summer  of  1793,  the  Con-^ 
vention  found  it  necessary  to  make  a  supreme  effort  to 
rally  the  rural  populations  to  the  defence  of  the  RepubHc. 
France  was  at  war  with  all  the  neighbouring  powers  ; 
foreign  armies  were  on  her  soil ;  civil  strife  of  a  particularly 
atrocious  character  was  raging  in  La  Vendee.  At  any 
cost,  the  support  of  the  peasants  had  to  be  obtained. 

The  first  step  was  taken  on  10  June  1793  in  the 
decree  which  provided  for  the  distribution  of  the  com- 
mon lands  among  the  inhabitants  of  the  communes. 
With  the  main  provisions  of  this  law  we  are  not  here 
concerned,  but  we  may  note  that  it  extended  and  made 
more  drastic  the  effects  of  the  decree  of  August  1792. 
All  common  lands  and  properties  of  whatever  description 
were  declared  to  belong  to  the  communes  in  which  they 
were  situated.     Possession  for  forty  years  by  a  former 

*  Sagaac  and  Carou,  p.  777. 


196    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

seigneur  was  no  longer  to  be  a  sufficient  title  for  the 
ownership  of  old  commons,  nor  could  a  title  emanating 
from  feudal  power  be  accepted.  Only  an  authentic  act 
of  purchase  was  to  be  held  legitimate. 
I  On  17  July,  the  Convention  passed  another  decree 
Which  completed  the  destruction  of  feudalism.  "  All 
dues  formerly  seigneurial,"  said  the  first  article,  "  feudal 
rights  whether  fixed  or  casual,  even  those  maintained 
by  the  decree  of  the  25th  August  last,  are  suppressed 
without  indemnity. y  All  legal  processes,  whether  civil 
or  criminal,  arising  from  a  question  of  feudal  rights, 
were  summarily  quashed.  The  very  name  and  memory 
of  feudalism  was  to  be  destroyed,  and  to  this  end  all 
persons  who  held  documents  relating  to  the  dues  were 
ordered  to  hand  them  over  to  the  communal  councils, 
who  were  to  have  them  burned  in  public.  The  punish- 
ment for  failure  to  comply  with  this  order  was  to  be  five 
years'  imprisonment  in  irons. 

It  is  curious  that  little  should  be  known  of  the  history 
of  a  measure  so*  drastic  and  so  important.  It  was 
scarcely  mentioned  in  the  newspapers  of  the  time.  M. 
Aulard  has  recently  brought  to  light  the  few  ascert,ainable 
facts  in  regard  to  it.  On  3  June,  it  would  appear,  a 
member  (whose  name  remains  unknown)  proposed  that 
the  Convention  should  pass  "  a  general  law  to  complete 
the  destruction  of  feudalism."  The  Committee  on 
Legislation  agreed  to  make  a  report  on  the  subject  within 
a  fortnight,  but  failed  to  do  so.  On  15  July,  Isore 
proposed  the  burning  of  feudal  documents.  Two  da3's 
after,  Charlier  reported  on  behalf  of  the  Committee,  and 
introduced  a  measure  which  was  immediately  passed.  Of 
the  discussion,  if  any  took  place,  no  account  has  been 
preserved.  Thus,  in  a  strange  silence,  the  Convention- 
threw  the  last  sods  into  the  grave  of  a  social  system. ^ 

The  article  which  ordered  the  destruction  of  feudal 
documents  seems  to  have  been  fairly  generally  carried 
1  Aulard,  pp.  453-5. 


THE  END  OF  FEUDALISM  197 

out,  though,  fortunately  for  students  of  history,  large 
numbers  of  them  escaped  the  fiery  ordeal.  The  Abbe 
Uzureau  published  an  interesting  pamphlet  a  few  years 
ago  which  describes  in  detail  how  the  work  of  destruction 
was  carried  out  at  Angers.  There,  in  a  succession  of 
burnings,  the  last  of  which  took  place  on  27  February 
1794,  an  immense  quantity  of  titles,  registers,  and 
similar  papers  were  given  to  the  flames.  After  that  date 
the  municipahty  continued  to  receive  such  documents, 
but  preserved  them.^  At  Louhans  (Saone-et-Loire)  two 
municipal  councillors  were  instructed  to  search  the 
archives  for  all  feudal  deeds  and  papers  "to  be  burned 
in  a  bonfire,  at  a  fete  organised  for  the  occasion."  On 
8  November  1793,  the  citizen  P.  M.  Guerret  attended  a 
meeting  of  the  Societe  populaire  and  deposited  "  all  the 
deeds  which  he  possesses  concerning  feudahsm,  such  as 
manor-rolls,  recognitions  .  .  .  and  other  documents  of 
that  kind  "  ;  his  example  was  followed  by  several  other 
persons.  When  the  appointed  day  arrived,  the  munici- 
pality, the  members  of  the  society,  and  a  crowd  of 
citizens  of  both  sexes,  marched  in  procession  with  effigies 
of  the  Pope  to  an  open  space  where  the  flames  speedily 
consumed  "  all  the  deeds,  papers,  and  rags  of  feudalism," 
together  with  "  the  vile  attributes  of  fanaticism  and  sacer- 
dotal playthings."  The  crowd  cried,  "  Long  hve  the 
Repubhc  I  Long  live  the  Mountain  !  "  while  men  and 
women  danced  the  Carmagnole  around  the  bonfire. 
Similar  burnings  took  place  in  most  of  the  communes  of 
the  district. 2  The  municipality  of  Maroles  (Auvergne) 
destroyed  "  the  titles  of  feudahsm  "  on  8  December 
1793,^  and  at  Mir^court  (Vosges),  the  pubhc  executioner 
solemnly  burnt  them  at  the  foot  of  the  tree  of  Liberty  on 
19  April  1794."' 

There  seems  to  be  no  doubt  that  the  Convention's 

*  Uzureau  (F.),  Les  brukments  d' archives  d  Angers. 

*  Guilleraaut,  vol.  ii.  p.  244.  •  Seires,  vol.  iv.  p.  121. 

*  Bouvier,  p.  23a. 


198    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

decree  overshot  the  mark  at  which  it  was  aimed.  It  had 
been  expressly  laid  down  that  rents  other  than  feudal 
were  excluded  from  its  operation,  but  when  the  law  came 
to  be  put  into  force  many  ordinary  leases  of  land  were 
destroyed.  Landlords  had  often  been  in  the  habit  of 
making  some  charge  on  mutation  part  of  the  rent  of  a 
piece  of  land,  or  the  same  title  included  both  feudal  and 
ordinary  rents.  In  such  cases,  the  tenant  suddenly 
found  himself  endowed  with  the  ownership  of  a  property 
to  which  he  had  never  put  forward  a  claim,  and  a  good  deal 
of  hardship  seems  to  have  been  caused  in  this  way  to 
innocent  persons. ^  The  Committee  on  Legislation  vainly 
endeavoured  to^'persuade  the  Convention  to  provide  for 
such  hard  cases  ;  its  project  of  a  decree  was  rejected. 

After  July  I793,feudahsm  was  entirely  dead  in  France. 
Under  the  Directory  and  the  Consulate  there  were  pro- 
posals to  amend  the  law,  but  all  these  efforts  failed.  They 
were  only  intended,  in  any  case,  to  restore  to  the  State 
lands  belonging  to  it  which  had  passed  into  private 
ownership,  owing  to  the  confusion  mentioned  above. 
Neither  under  Napoleon  nor  the  Restoration  was  there 
any  serious  attempt  to  restore  the  seigneurs  lo  their 
ancient  economic  privileges.  That  chapter  of  French 
history  was  for  ever  closed. 

Certain  conclusions  impose  themselves  on  the  mind 
as  the  result  of  a  study  of  this  episode  in  the  history  of 
the  Revolution.     They  are  presented  very  briefly  for  the 
dreader's  consideration.  .  First,  that  the  primary  cause  of 
i  revolutions  is  the  survival  of  institutions,  whether  political 
I  or  economic,  which  no  longer  fulfil  their  original  function. 
'  All  institutions  are  created  to  meet  some  need,  to  answer 
some  purpose  ;  when  we  speak  of  "  growth  "  in  this  con- 
nexion, we  use  a  dangerous  and  deceptive  term.     Institu- 
tions do  not  grow,  they  are  made  ;    the  history  of  any 
society  is  a  record  of  their  creation,  destruction,  and  re- 

1  Sagnac,  p.  147  ;  Aulard,  pp.  256-7. 


THE  END  OF  FEUDALISM  199 

placement.  They  are  made  because  men  feel  a  want, 
a  need,  which  demands  positive  satisfaction.  But  it  is  in 
the  nature  of  things  that  all  such  social  creations  should 
outhve  their  utihty  and  "  linger  superfluous  on  the 
stage."  Then  they  begin  to  press  upon  the  social  organ- 
isation, to  impede  its  growth  and  hinder  its  development  ; 
it  must  free  itself  or  perish.  If  society  has  evolved  ma- 
chinery whereby  its  institutions  can  be  easily  altered,  and 
if  no  vested  interests  or  prejudices  are  concerned  in  the 
maintenance  of  that  which  has  become  functionless,  then 
all  is  well ;  the  work  of  replacement  will  be  peaceably 
accomphshed.  But  it  is  also  in  the  nature  of  things  that 
such  a  fortunate  conjunction  of  circumstances  seldom 
occurs.  Interests,  whether  sentimental  or  economic,  are 
almost  always  bound  up  with  the  life  of  a  piece  of  social 
machinery,  and  if  they  happen  to  be  powerful  and  tena- 
cious, a  revolutionary  situation  is  engendered.  Either 
the  foxces  of  Hberation  and  renewal  will  burst  the  barriers 
with  more  or  less  of  violence,  or  those  of  immobihty  \\ill 
triumph,  and  decay  will  invade  the  whole  social  body. 

Such  was  the  situation  in  France  in  1789.  Feudahsni 
had  had  a  long  and  not  inglorious  history.  After  the) 
collapse  of  the  Roman  dominion  it  had  saved  society  from 
dissolution.  When  the  immense  and  burdensome  des- 
potism of  the  Empire  had  fallen  of  its  own  weight,  the  only 
possible  bond  whereby  men  could  be  held  together  in 
any  sort  of  co-operation  was  that  of  personal  and  local 
loyalty.  But  this  principle  inevitably  engendered  abuses 
in  its  turn  ;  after  despotism  came  anarchy,  in  which  the^ 
very  idea  of  the  State,  of  large-scale  political  organisation,! 
tended  to  disappear.  The  monarchy  rose  to  power  on  the 
ruins  of  the  feudalism  it  had  been  compelled  to  combat, 
but  once  its  victory  was  complete  and  its  authority  un- 
questioned, it  abandoned  its  task  and  sank  into  that 
quiescence  which  is  the  forerunner  of  decay.  Wlien  the 
new  forces  in  French  society  had  reached  maturitj'^  a 
conflict  was  inevitable  ;  men  had  outgrown  the  absolute 


200    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

monarchy  as  they  had  outgrown  the  agrarian  system, 
and  both  the  Crown  and  the  feudahsm  it  had  spared  were 
shattered  into  utter  ruin. 

"  The  popular  sense  of  right  may  often  be  wiser  than 
the  opinion  of  statesmen."  ^  This  maxim  of  a  briUiant 
pohtical  thinker  finds  full  confirmation  from  the  history 
of  the  revolutionary  legislation  concerning  feudalism. 
The  secular  ideal  of  the  French  peasant  was  the  Uberation 
of  the  land  and  the  achievement  of  civil  equahty ;  ^  to 
him  these  things  were  fundamentals,  beside  which  any 
other  reforms  were  of  small  importance.  Moreover, 
they  were,  he  felt,  inseparably  Unked  together.  His 
instinct,  the  product  of  long  ages  of  enslavement  to  the 
glebe,  was  profoundly  right ;  he  could  not  have  formulated 
Harrington's  great  first  principle  of  political  science,  but 
he  felt  its  truth  in  his  bones.  "  If  the  whole  people  be 
landlords,  or  hold  the  lands  so  divided  among  them,  that 
no  one  Man  or  number  of  Men,  within  the  compass  of  the 
Few  or  Aristocracy,  overbalance  them,  the  Empire  (with- 
out the  interposition  of  force)  is  a  Commonwealth."  The 
land  to  him  meant  liberty,  for  he  knew  that  without  it 
things  and  men  might  be  called  by  new  names  but  would 
still  be  the  same  in  fact.  Even  as  to  practical  details  of 
politics  his  ignorance  was  better  than  the  wisdom  of  the 
wise.  He  wished  to  break  up  the  monastic  estates,  but 
he  was  not  concerned  to  turn  his  cure  into  an  official ; 
he  knew  that  to  make  redemption  of  the  casual,  along  with 
the  annual,  dues  compulsory,  was  to  render  the  whole 
scheme  of  enfranchisement  impossible  of  application. 
But,  above  all,  he  knew  that  oil  and  water  cannot  mix, 
that  feudalism  was  incompatible  with  liberty  and  equality, 
.  and  however  limited  his  vision  of  these  things  might  be, 
he  understood  their  concrete  reahties  much  better  than 
the  earnest  reformers  who  prescribed  for  him  from  Paris. 
Time,  which  judges  all  human  things,  has  proved  him  in 

^  Laski  (H.  J.),  Political  Thought  from  Locke  to  Bentham,  p.  266. 
*  Cf.  Hanoteaux,  work  cited,  p.  397. 


THE  END  OF  FEUDALISM  201 

the  right.  I  Governments  have  come  and  gone  ;  France 
has  changed  from  Republic  to  Empire,  from  Empire  to 
Monarchy,  from  Monarchy  to  Republic  again,  but  two 
things  have  never  changed  :  the  peasant's  grip  upon 
French  soil,  and  the  rule  which  makes  all  Frenchmen  the 
subjects  of  an  equal  law.  I 


APPENDIX 

TO  avoid  overloading  the  text  with  citations  a 
number  of  extracts  from  the  cahiers  deahng  with 
the  feudal  rights  are  brought  together  here.  They 
are  taken  entirely  from  the  petitions  of  rural  com- 
munities and  small  country  towns  in  the  following  pro- 
vinces :  Angoumois,  Berry,  Brittany,  Champagne,  Lan- 
guedoc,  Lorraine,  Normandy,  Orleanais,  Provence,  and 
Quercy. 

Acigne. — For  the  future,  the  seigneurs  shall  be  for- 
bidden to  lease  out  any  commons,  and  all  such  leases 
made  during  the  last  fifteen  years  shall  be  annulled. 

Aigny-sur-Marne. — The  inhabitants  of  Aigny  have 
the  honour  to  demand  : 

(i)  That  hunting  and  fishing  shall  be  permitted  to  any 
person  on  his  own  property,  game  and  fish  having  been 
created  by  the  author  of  Nature  for  the  subsistence  of 
all  men. 

(2)  That  no  seigneur  shall  be  permitted  to  establish 
rabbit  warrens,  and  that  those  already  in  e:dstence  shall 
be  destroyed,  the  animals  which  inhabit  them  being 
infinitely  injurious  to  agriculture  and  consequently  to 
the  common  weal. 

(3)  That  all  seigneurs  shall  be  obliged  to  justify  by 
the  original Jt it les  the  cens,  rents,  dues,  lods  et  ventes,  and 
other  servitudes,  whether  personal  or  real,  with  which 
they  charge  their  vassals,  and  that  in  the  absence  of  such 
titles  these  objects  of  servitude  shall  be  abolished.^ 

1  This  cahier  sensed  as  a  model  for  the  electoral  assemblies  of  six 
other  parishes. 


APPENDIX  208 

Auhigne. — Let  the  vassals  be  freed  from  carting  the 
stones  for  the  lords'  mills  at  their  own  expense  ;  let  them 
also  be  dispensed  from  furnishing  the  wood  for  the  mill- 
wheels, 

Aidnay-aux-Planches. — The  suppression  of  the  right 
of  reirait,  exercised  by  the  seigneurs,  and  that  the  dues  of 
which  the  origin  is  not  proved  by  good  titles  and  are 
founded  only  on  custom,  be  of  no  effect,  and  the  com- 
munities dispensed  from  satisfying  them. 

Aunac. — Let  the  inhabitants  be  discharged  from  all 
dues  of  minage,  hallage,  and  on  the  sale  of  cattle,  and  freed 
from  the  monopolies  of  mill  and  oven. 

Avord. — How  many  parishes  have  lost  the  commons 
which  they  formerly  possessed  !  The  law  of  the  strongest 
has  prevailed,  and  the  villager  has  seen  himself  despoiled 
without  daring  to  demand  his  rights.  He  has  been 
checked  by  the  heavy  fees  he  w^ould  be  obliged  to  advance 
to  be  able  to  re-enter  into  possession.  This  is  the  cause 
which,  up  to  the  present,  has  prevented  the  parish  of 
Avord  from  prosecuting  the  heir  of  the  usurper  of  its 
common  lands. 

Baronvillc. — The  pigeon-houses  cause  much  injury  to 
proprietors  ;  if  a  sown  field  be  not  immediately  harrowed, 
a  large  part  of  the  seed  is  carried  off  by  the  pigeons,  and 
the  peasants  find  themselves  without  a  harvest.  Corn 
of  all  kinds  scarcely  begins  to  ripen  before  it  is  devoured  ; 
we  are  afraid  to  leave  the  sheaves  in  the  fields  to  dry  and 
attain  perfect  maturity  because  these  little  robbers  carry 
away  as  much  as  they  can.  If  it  please  the  States-General 
to  maintain  these  cotes,  we  demand  freedom  to  kill  the 
birds  in  prohibited  seasons. 

Bcannc-Ja-Rolandc. — We  demand  the  abolition  of  the 
seigneurial  corvees,  of  the  monopolies  of  mills,  bakehouses, 
and  winepresses,  of  hunting  rights,  and  other  oppressive 
charges  of  this  description. 

Benestroff. — For  many  centuries  France  has  dis- 
tinguished itself  above  all  other  realms  by  destroying  the 


204    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

tyranny  of  petty  sovereigns  and  according  to  all  its  sub- 
jects the  glorious  quality  of  free  men.  But,  on  looking 
closely  into  things,  it  will  be  seen  that  this  is  merely  an 
empty  title  ;  in  fact,  many  of  them  are  truly  the  serfs 
and  slaves  of  the  feudal  lords  who  no  longer  discharge 
at  their  own  expense  the  services  attached  to  the  benefits 
accorded  them  by  the  sovereigns  and  immensely  increased 
by  the  people.  Their  subjects  are  constrained  to  an 
infinit}^  of  servitudes,  both  real  and  personal,  rents,  cens, 
dues,  charges,  corvees,  and  other  similar  rights  over  private 
and  communal  properties,  without  being  able  to  plead  or 
be  heard  before  any  tribunal.  How  good  and  consoling 
it  would  be  if  the  bounty  and  wisdom  of  His  Majesty 
set  limits  to  such  miseries,  increased  as  they  are  every  day 
by  new  inventions  ! 

Bertrichamp. — We  do  not  complain  of  the  collection 
of  the  tithes  which  the  Church  is  accustomed  to  levy  on 
our  harvests.  Our  ancestors  conceded  them  to  the  priests 
who  administer  our  parishes,  and  not  otherwise  ;  yet  our 
cures  only  enjoy  the  smallest  part  of  these  tithes,  having 
been  despoiled  of  the  rest  by  the  greatest  possible  abuse. 
We  demand  that  all  portions  of  the  tithes  of  which  our 
priests  have  been  deprived  be  returned  to  us  ;  they  would 
be  employed  in  the  building  and  maintenance  of  our 
churches.  .  .  .  We  should  use  the  surplus  in  relieving  the 
poor  of  each  community,  and  mendicity  would  be  sup- 
pressed by  the  easiest  and  most  just  of  methods. 

Bourg-des-Comptes. — The  tithe,  that  odious  tax  which 
deprives  the  peasant  of  the  best  portion  of  his  crop,  and  is 
levied  in  so  bizarre  a  fashion,  shall  be  suppressed, 

Bezange-la-Petiie. — The  dues  for  protection,  a  rehc  of 
the  feudal  system,  ought  to  be  abolished.  As  the  seigneurs 
are  released  from  the  obhgation  of  furnishing  protection, 
equity  demands  that  the  vassals  should  be  reUeved  from 
the  dues  for  this  purpose,  which  are  very  heavy  for  this 
little  commune. 

Blanzac. — As  hunting  and  fishing  are  natural  rights, 


APPENDIX  205 

and  the  exclusive  enjoyment  of  them  which  the  seigneurs 
have  arrogated  to  themselves  is  only  the  effect  of  author- 
ity, it  shall  be  free  to  every  one  to  hunt  on  his  own  land 
and  to  fish  in  the  waters  which  are  a  part  of  his  property. 

Bourdenay. — It  is  not  without  pain  that  the  com- 
munities see  themselves  deprived  of  their  best  properties 
on  the  pretext  that  there  is  no  land  without  a  lord.  How 
many  inconveniences  arise  from  this  cause  !  The  poor 
man  cannot  raise  the  cattle  which  are  his  only  means 
of  obtaining  milk,  butter,  and  cheese.  We  have  been 
assured  recently  that  the  seigneurs  have  made  titles  for 
themselves  on  parchment,  called  charters,  which,  although 
they  are  new,  seem  old  because  of  the  form  given  them. 

Briel. — The  inhabitants  complain  of  the  infeudated 
tithe  collected  from  their  fields  by  the  seigneurs.  They 
demand  the  suppression  of  this  tithe  .  .  .  and  that  it 
should  return  to  its  true  and  original  destination  in  the 
hands  of  the  parish  priest. 

Bue. — As  there  was  at  one  time  an  intention  to  estab- 
lish a  monopoly  of  the  mill  in  this  parish,  we  humbly 
demand  that  all  monopoUes  shall  be  suppressed  as  odious 
things  ;  and  that  all  rights  of  toll  shall  be  abolished  or  at 
least  fixed  in  such  a  manner  that  every  individual  may 
know  what  he  owes  for  his  merchandise,  and  thus  avoid 
many  disputes. 

Butteaux. — The  greater  part  of  these  rights  are  the 
consequences  of  the  rule  of  the  strongest.  The  ignorance 
and  barbarism  of  early  ages  gave  them  birth.  The  sub- 
tlety of  the  compilers  of  manor-rolls,  who  have  mostly  sold 
their  souls  to  the  seigneurs,  has  perpetuated  and  greatly 
increased  them,  unknown  to  the  vassals.  These  behcve 
themselves  to  have  made  declaration  of  a  free  heritage 
in  a  free  custom,  and  are  not  a  little  surprised  .  .  .  when 
they  find  themselves  pursued  and  constrained  to  the  pay- 
ment of  certain  dues  which  do  not  date  farther  back  than 
the  time  of  their  last  declaration.  To  have  proof  of  this 
afiiicting  truth,  it  is  only  necessary  to  examine  the  manor- 


206  THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

rolls  made  during  the  last  fifty,  or  even  twenty-five  years. 
It  will  be  seen  that  they  were  compiled  with  only  two 
objects  in  view  :  to  extend  the  rights  of  the  lords  at  the 
expense  of  their  vassals,  and  to  enrich  the  commissioners. 

Cabrerets. — We  demand  the  aboHtion  of  all  species  of 
tithes  and  casual  fees  ;  each  beneficiary  should,  at  the 
same  time,  be  given  an  income  proportionate  to  his  con- 
dition, and  to  the  number  and  poverty  of  his  parishioners. 

Cerbois. — Among  the  various  abuses  there  is  one  in 
their  parish  which  does  them  the  greatest  wrong,  namely, 
the  swarms  of  pigeons  belonging  to  the  seigneurs  and 
farmers  of  the  neighbourhood.  This  abuse  has  been 
carried  to  such  a  point  that  the  petitioners  are  obliged  to 
double  their  sowings,  and  when  the  corn  has  reached 
maturity  they  are  again  compelled  to  take  the  greatest 
precautions  to  preserve  it  from  the  crops  of  these  hungry 
birds. 

The  right  of  tithe  which  belongs  to  the  seigneurs  is 
most  costly  and  vexatious.  ...  If  it  be  not  aboHshed, 
there  ought,  at  least,  to  be  rules  which  would  secure  the 
rights  of  the  poor  from  the  cupidity  of  the  lord's  agents. 

Cernon. — The  seigneurial  rights  that  we  o-^e  to  our 
lords  (which  were  at  one  time  our  only  charges)  being 
now  replaced  by  the  taxes  we  pay  to  the  King,  these 
ancient  rights  should  be  suppressed  as  a  double  tax,  save 
for  the  indemnities  due  to  our  seigneurs. 

Chassy. — The  rights  of  bordelage  and  retrait  are  odious  ; 
the  inhabitants  of  this  parish  hope  that  His  Majesty,  to 
encourage  his  people,  will  suppress  these  rights,  or  at  least 
convert  the  bordelage  into  a  cens. 

Chdteauneuf. — The  tithes  are,  perhaps,  one  of  the 
things  which  most  discourage  agriculture  ;  their  diversity 
in  each  canton  causes  an  infinity  of  lawsuits.  In  this 
parish  there  are  some  at  a  tenth,  and  others  at  a  twen- 
tieth ;  they  are  levied  on  lambs  and  on  flax,  even  in 
gardens.  The  inhabitants  demand  that  tithes  shall  be 
made  uniform  in  this  parish,  and  determined  generally  at  a 


APPENDIX  207 

thirtieth,  as  a  sufficient  portion  in  a  region  where  cultiva- 
tion is  very  expensive.  Each  household  shall  have  exemp- 
tion from  green  tithe  in  its  garden. 

In  the  number  of  seigneurial  rights  of  which  the  sup- 
pression or  reform  interests  the  pubUc  are,  firstly,  the 
courses  of  quintain  for  newly-married  persons,  the  still 
more  singular  obhgations  upon  those  who  sell  salted 
fish ;  these  rights,  which  may  be  regarded  as  relics 
of  the  abuses  of  the  feudal  system,  peld  nothing  use- 
ful to  the  seigneur,  and  limit  liberty,  marriages,  and 
industry  ;  we  demand  their  extinction  and  that  of  all 
similar  rights.^ 

Secondly,  the  obhgation  on  a  vassal  to  collect  the 
dues  of  the  fief  in  his  turn  and  rank  ;  often  a  vassal 
possesses  only  a  small  piece  of  land  in  a  large  fief,  and, 
when  his  turn  comes  to  collect,  it  costs  him  as  much  or 
nearly  as  much  as  the  value  of  his  property.  .  .  . 

Thirdly,  the  feudal  retraii  has  always  been  regarded 
as  an  exorbitant  right  ;  it  prevents  the  circulation  of 
properties  and  restricts  Uberty.  ...  It  would  be  very 
desirable  to  suppress  it  entirely,  and  to  reduce  the 
right  of  lods  et  ventes,  which,  by  an  excessive  usage, 
is  a  sixth  in  this  district,  to  the  general  rate  of  the 
province. 

Cherville. — We  demand  that  the  ancient  custom  in 
regard  to  the  tithes  shall  be  re-established,  that  is,  that 
they  shall  be  employed  in  assisting  the  poor  of  the  parish, 
in  the  erection  and  repair  of  churches  and  presbyteries, 
and  not  in  maintaining  the  splendour  of  the  clergy  of  the 
first  order. 

Coinccs. — The  parish  charges  its  deputies  to  support 
,  .  ,  the  suppression  of  the  ecclesiastical  tithe,  the  right 
of  champart  and  the  feudal  dues,  and  to  request  that 
permission  shall  be  given  to  redeem  them  by  the  least 

1  On  Easter  Tuesday,  "  all  fishmongers  who  have  retailed  fish 
during  Lent  "  were  obUged  "  to  leap  and  plunge  in  the  fish-ponds  of 
Cl:ateauneuf  "  on  pain  of  a  fine.     S6e  and  L^sort,  vol.  lii.  p.  132. 


208     THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

expensive    method    that    the    National    Assembly    can 
devise.^ 

Conde-sur-Marne. — ^Demands  that  the  local  customary 
law  which  presumes  the  allodiality  of  lands  shall  be  firmly 
estabhshed,  and  continues  :  But,  as  the  rights  pretended 
in  favour  of  non-allodiality  are  derived  from  slavery 
and  servitude  rather  than  from  freedom  and  consent,  it 
would  be  desirable  that  all  rights  which  tend  to  enslave 
and  humiliate  humanity,  and  are  the  fruits  of  violence 
and  usurpation,  should  be  abolished  .  .  .  unless  the 
titles  of  concession  are  exhibited  to  those  from  whom 
such  rights  are  demanded. 

Corbeil. — Let  the  seigneurial  jurisdictions  be  main- 
tained. 

Coulmiers. — It  is  not  sufficient  that  the  animals  and 
game  which  the  Creator  has  given  for  the  nourishment 
and  support  of  man  be  reserved  for  the  satisfaction  of 
the  sensuality  of  the  rich,  and  that  it  be  a  punishable 
offence  for  a  non-noble  proprietor  to  clear  his  fields  or  set 
traps  for  them ;  he  is  scarcely  allowed  to  keep  dogs  for 
his  defence  on  night  journeys,  when  he  walks  along 
dangerous  roads.  In  order  to  preserve  the  game  that  he 
never  eats,  it  is  sought  to  forbid  him  to  clear  the  weeds 
from  his  field  ...  he  is  not  permitted,  in  many  places, 
to  cut  the  stubble  after  harvest.  .  .  .  How  many  ridicu- 
lous ordinances  have  been  made,  and  still  more  unjust 
sentences  inflicted,  in  regard  to  this  question  ! 

Coupetz. — The  community  complains  of  a  right  of 
terrage  exercised  by  the  seigneur  on  its  territory ;  it 
does  not  know  on  what  this  right  is  founded,  and  even 
thinks  that  it  has  been  usurped.  The  right  of  levying 
terrage  is  not  of  common  law ;  it  can  only  be  acquired. 
Now,  we  cannot  find  that  this  has  ever  been  done.  .  . 
It  follows  that  this  alleged  right  has  been  wrongfully 
acquired.  ...  In  view  of  this  the  seigneur  ought  to  prove 

1  This  use  of  the  expression  "  National  Assembly  "  as  early  as  March 
1789  is  noteworthy. 


APPENDIX  209 

his  right,  and  if  he  cannot  do  so,  abandon  it.  ,  .  .  The 
lord  of  Coupetz  also  o'^tis  the  river  without  ever  having 
justified  his  possession  by  any  title. 

Ecury-sur-Coole. — All  the  feudal  rights,  including 
even  the  tithe,  should  be  suppressed,  or  the  people  per- 
mitted to  redeem  them. 

Engenville.—His  Majesty  shall  be  entreated  to  order 
that  the  pigeon-cotes  built  since  his  ordinances  be  pulled 
down,  and  their  owners  condemned  to  a  fine  of  300  livrcs 
for  the  benefit  of  the  poor,  on  the  denunciation  of  two 
inhabitants  of  the  community. 

Epintac. — The  suppression  of  ihe  francs-fiefs  ought  also 
to  enter  into  the  beneficent  views  of  Your  Majesty.  Such 
a  tax,  that  we  dare  to  call  disastrous  in  itself,  such  a  tax 
reminds  us  every  twenty  years,  and  at  each  mutation  of 
property,  of  the  degradation  of  the  ancient  serfs  who 
could  not  possess  land  which  had  belonged  to  a  noble 
without  paying  the  rachat  for  it.  In  an  enhghtened  age 
such  as  that  in  which  we  hve,  at  the  moment  when  Your 
Majesty  wishes  to  draw  us  up  from  nothingness  to 
give  us  the  status  of  citizens  ;  at  a  time  when  the  eleva- 
tion of  our  souls  permits  us  to  take  that  title,  you  will  not 
force  us.  Sire,  to  blush  by  reminding  us  of  the  humiliation 
of  our  forefathers.  In  this  unhappy  parish,  three-quarters 
of  the  property  owned  by  commoners  is  subject  to  franc- 
fief 

Ah  !  Sire,  how  much  is  the  unhappy  peasant  vexed  ! 
On  how  many  matters  has  he  to  demand  justice  from 
you  !  The  hunt  is  another  of  the  branches  of  feudal 
tyranny  ;  in  the  night  the  peasant  sees  his  lord's  warrens 
empty  themselves  for  the  ravage  of  his  crops  and  orchards  ; 
during  the  day  the  pigeons  fall  in  thousands  on  the 
fields  he  has  just  sown  ;  the  hares  nibble  his  corn,  devour 
his  few  vegetables  he  has  raised  to  eat  with  his  dry 
bread  ;  he  must  sufter  all  these  wrongs,  abandon  the 
morsel  of  bread  which  ought  to  nourish  himself  and  his 
unhappy  family  on  the  morrow,  so  that  he  does  not 
14 


210  THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

interrupt  the  pleasures  of  a  being  similar  to  himself  but 
whom  Nature  has  made  a  gentleman.  A  new  law, 
stronger  than  those  which  now  exist,  while  permitting 
the  destruction  of  the  animals  that  devastate  our  crops, 
could,  at  the  same  time,  protect  them  against  careless 
hunters. 

To  meet  the  deficit  ...  we  can  point  out  to  you  an 
efficacious  means  :  it  is  the  total  suppression  or  drastic 
reform  of  the  religious  orders  which  are  of  no  utility  to 
your  people,  which  fulfil  no  pastoral  function,  and  whose 
revenues  are  immense  ;  most  frequently  they  serve  no 
purpose,  but  to  foment  disorder  and  spread  debauchery 
in  the  country  ;  a  life-pension  could  be  assigned  to  each 
monk  .  .  .  and  their  possessions  sold  to  meet  the  deficit, 
for  we  consider  it  more  advantageous  to  the  government 
to  bring  these  into  circulation  than  to  administer  them. 

Erces-en-Lamee.  —  The  corvees  which  the  seigneurs 
allege  are  due,  and  the  harsh  fashion  in  which  they  are 
enforced,  have  become  so  onerous  to  certain  of  the  in- 
habitants that  they  are  ready  to  abandon  their  lands  in 
order  to  escape  from  them.  The  lords,  moreover,  have 
procurators-fiscal,  who  play  the  tyrant  in  ev^ry  canton  ; 
to  obtain  a  penny  due  to  the  seigneur  they  will  exact  ten 
crowns  in  fees  from  a  vassal,  and  will  not  cease  to  torment 
him  till  they  have  wrung  him  dry.  .  .  .  When  it  pleases  a 
seigneur  to  demand  an  aveu,  his  procurator  exhausts 
every  species  of  chicanery  to  ruin  the  vassals,  and  in- 
validates their  aveux  for  mere  trifles  ;  to  avoid  this  in- 
convenience, we  desire  that  the  seigneurs  should  supply 
us  with  an  exact  formula  for  the  rendering  of  aveux,  and 
that  when  this  form  is  observed  they  cannot  be  invali- 
dated ;  this  will  avoid  the  brigandage  of  the  subaltern 
officers,  who  obey  no  law  but  their  own  cupidity. 

Etrelles. — They  desire  .  .  .  that  the  seigneurs  shall 
have  no  power  to  demand  triages  in  the  future. 

Fouquebrune. — They  [the  deputies]  will  demand  the 
abolition  of  franc-fief,  which  is  a  necessary  consequence 


APPENDIX  211 

of  the  fiscal  equality  between  the  three  Orders.  They 
must  not  pass  over  in  silence  our  too  just  complaints 
toucliing  the  exorbitant  tax  oi  franc-fief ,  which,  against 
natural  right,  takes  two  years'  revenue  from  the  pro- 
prietor, and  even  more  in  case  of  death. 

Fonrnis. — We  cannot  pass  over  in  silence  the  excessive 
abuses  of  which  the  lords'  agents  are  culpable,  and  under 
which  their  vassals  have  long  complained.  The  censives, 
and  the  lods  which  they  demand  for  sales  and  mutations, 
are  as  exorbitant  as  they  are  unjust.  What  !  my  neces- 
sities compel  me  to  sell  my  property  and  I  am  forced  to 
increase  them  to  enrich  the  seigneur  I  I  take  a  piece  of 
land  from  a  debtor  in  payment  of  what  he  owes  me,  and 
I  must  add  the  seigneurial  dues  to  my  loss  !  In  any  case, 
all  rights  which  bear  this  name  ought  to  be  abolished ; 
they  date  from  a  time  of  slavery,  and  it  would  be  worthy 
of  an  age  of  liberty  to  annihilate  them, 

Grigneville. — It  is  very  desirable  that  there  should  be 
only  one  seigneur  in  each  parish,  for  if  an  individual 
have  five  or  six  pieces  of  land,  depending  on  several  lords, 
he  must  furnish  as  many  recognitions  as  there  are  seig- 
neurs, which  becomes  very  costly  to  him. 

Guichen. — The  right  of  fumage  which  exists  in  some 
cantons  of  the  parish  of  Guichen  should  be  suppressed ; 
this  feudal  due  consists  of  six  bushels  of  oats  and  a  fowl, 
payable  annually  for  each  chimney  in  which  fire  and 
smoke  is  made,  and  amounts,  in  an  average  year,  to 
i8  livres ;  although  the  house  is  often  not  rented 
at  3  livres.  The  origin  of  this  right  is  that  the  seig- 
neur fonnerly  provided  his  vassal  with  firewood  during 
three  months  of  the  year,  and  even  with  large  pieces  of 
timber,  when  he  vnshed  to  build.  Now  that  the  lord  no 
longer  makes  this  provision,  it  seems  just  to  abolish  so 
oppressive  a  right  for  ever,  since  because  of  it  several 
villages  have  fallen  into  ruins. 

Guipel. — There  shall  be  no  more  lods  et  ventes  on 
contracts  of  exchange  ;    this  right,  being  levied  against 


212    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

the  spirit  of  our  customary  law,  is  absolutely  injurious 
to  proprietors  and  to  agriculture. 

Guitte. — To  render  aveu  to  a  seigneur  for  a  piece  of 
land  rented  at  40  sols  has  cost  15  livres  ;  if  this  be  not 
done  to  the  fancy  of  the  lord  and  his  procurator-fiscal, 
it  is  invalidated  and  costs  three  and  four  times  as  much. 

Haussimont. — The  said  community  represents  that  it 
would  be  very  desirable  to  abolish  the  right  to  maintain 
warrens.  This  is  a  scourge  for  agriculture  wherever  it 
exists.  The  rabbits  destroy  all  the  crops  they  can  reach, 
including  the  woods.  .  .  .  The  peasant  receives  nothing 
from  his  fields.  He  must,  however,  pay  the  tallage,  the 
twentieths,  and  other  taxes,  as  well  as  the  dues  he  owes 
to  his  seigneur,  which  are  always  rigorously  exacted. 
This  right  is  odious  and  a  source  of  ruinous  disputes 
between  the  lord  and  his  vassals. 

Iffendic. — The  seigneurs  of  fiefs  .  .  .  force  their 
vassals  to  collect  the  feudal  rents  ;  the  cost  of  this  col- 
lection is  often  greater  than  the  value  of  the  property 
the  vassal  holds  under  the  fief.  This  is  an  abuse  which 
has  survived  from  the  ancient  feudal  government.  .  .  . 

La  Baussaine. — Let  the  odious  rights  of  quintains, 
soules,  and  others  of  a  similar  nature  be  for  ever  extin- 
guished and  suppressed,  as  contrary  to  good  morals  and 
pubhc  order. 

La  Caure. — The  pigeons,  and  the  rabbits  above  all, 
cause  great  damage  in  our  countryside  ;  we  plough,  we 
sow,  we  pay  the  taxes,  the  cens  and  the  surcens,  and  yet 
we  harvest  scarcely  anything,  which  ruins  us  from  top 
to  bottom  ;  we  leave  the  greater  part  of  our  land  fallow 
because  of  this  misfortune  and  scourge.  .  .  .  The  right 
of  feudal  retrait  makes  great  and  rich  proprietors,  dimin- 
ishes the  King's  revenue,  discourages  indi\4duals  who 
wish  to  carry  out  improvements,  and  ends  by  ruining  the 
communities  where  it  is  established.  The  lods  et  ventes 
are  also  a  kind  of  tax.  We  therefore  demand  reform  in 
all  these  matters  ;  the  old  days  are  gone  for  ever. 


APPENDIX  218 

La  Couronne. — The  said  inhabitants,  considering  that 
the  seigneurial  courts  multiply  the  degrees  of  jurisdiction 
and  cause  useless  expense,  not  to  mention  the  abuses 
which  take  place  in  them,  are  of  opinion  that  it  would 
be  advantageous  to  the  pubUc  to  order  the  suppression  of 
all  seigneurial  jurisdictions.  .  .  .  Moreover,  the  inhabi- 
tants ask  that  all  persons,  of  whatever  quahty,  be  for- 
bidden to  keep  pigeons  and  pigeon-cotes,  with  the  ex- 
ception of  seigneurs  who  possess  the  right  of  high  justice. 

Laille. — By  the  usage  of  the  fief,  the  greater  part  of 
our  houses  are  subjected  to  a  due  called  fumage  ;  on 
some,  it  consists  of  a  somme  of  oats,  on  others,  of  four- 
fifths  of  a  somme}  This  is  much  more  than  their  value, 
and  most  of  these  houses  are  falhng  into  ruins ;  our 
inhabitants  fly  to  other  parishes  where  these  feudal 
charges  do  not  exist.  Most  of  the  fumages  have  been 
estabhshed  during  the  last  twenty  or  thirty  years  in 
villages  which  had  been  exempt  from  them ;  in  con- 
sequence, we  demand  to  be  discharged  from  them  or  that 
they  be  reduced. 

La  Loupidre. — Endow  the  parish  priests  of  each  pro- 
vince with  a  sufficient  income  and  suppress  all  the  tithes. 

Laverdines. — All  bordelages  and  monopohes  shall  be 
extinguished  and  suppressed  as  odious. 

Les  Hordes. — The  inhabitants  of  the  country  districts 
ought  to  be  permitted  to  destroy  the  wild  boars  and  the 
birds  vulgarly  known  as  starhngs,  which  cause  great 
injury  to  the  crops,  particularly  at  the  harvest  season. 

Lezinnes. — The  deputies  of  the  Third  Estate  will 
demand  that  the  rights  of  ce^is  and  tierce  be  abohshed, 
as  they  are  a  heavier  charge  for  the  cultivators  than  the 
royal  taxes. 

Lhcrm. — The  desire  of  the  community  is  .  .  .  that 
all  the  seigneurial  courts  should  be  suppressed,  and  that 
there  should  be  established  in  each  community  justices 

^  The  somme  was  a  local  measure,  equal  to  "  the  ordinary  loaul  of  a 
horse."     S6e  and  L6sort,  vol,  ii.  p.  211, 


214  THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

of  the  peace  who  will  decide  most  disputes  when  they 
begin. 

Luisetaines. — We  demand  and  insist  upon  the  refor- 
mation of  the  tithes,  which  have  come  to  be  the  most 
frightful  of  taxes  .  .  .  and  are  employed  at  present  to 
maintain  the  idleness  of  most  of  the  monks  and  ecclesi- 
astics, to  the  great  scandal  of  religion. 

Mazargues. — The  inhabitants  of  Mazargues  are  crushed 
by  the  ingratitude  of  the  soil  they  cultivate,  by  the  dues 
with  which  it  is  charged,  and  by  the  abusive  extensions 
which  the  seigneur  or  his  agents  give  to  his  rights.  .  .  . 
They  render  due  homage  to  the  personal  virtues  of  their 
lord,  but  he  cannot  disabuse  himself  of  the  illusions  of 
self-interest,  and  the  inhabitants  of  Mazargues,  too  feeble 
to  protest  on  their  own  account,  solicit  the  aid  of  Mar- 
seille, their  mother  city. 

They  submit  that  their  lands  are  subject  to  the  tasque 
on  all  grain,  olives,  and  vegetables,  at  the  rate  of  one 
fourth  of  the  crop ;  that  for  grapes  the  charge  is  one- 
fifth  ;  that  each  household  is  subject  to  the  annual  due 
of  a  fat  pullet,  which  the  seigneur  values  at  from  20 
to  36  sols.  ' 

That  the  seigneurial  agents  and  rent -farmers  restrict 
the  liberty  of  the  inhabitants  at  the  time  of  harvest 
and  vintage,  inasmuch  as  they  forbid  them  to  be  made 
without  their  permission  or  out  of  their  presence,  which  is 
an  unhead-of  limitation  and  one  that  cannot  be  sustained 
by  any  title  ;  that  the  monopoly  of  the  bakehouse  .  .  . 
leads  to  all  sorts  of  vexations,  excessive  charges,  refusals 
to  cook,  and  negligence.  To  which  it  must  be  added  that 
a  single  oven  is  insufficient  for  the  place,  and  the  inhabi- 
tants are  compelled  to  lack  bread  ;  if,  to  procure  this 
primary  necessity,  they  address  themselves  to  the  neigh- 
bouring bakers,  severity  is  pushed  to  the  point  of  seizing 
their  bread.  .  .  .  The  seigneur  ought  to  maintain  a  suffi- 
cient oven,  and  in  default  the  inhabitants  should  be 
authorised,  after  giving  twenty-four  hours'  notice,  to  have 


APPENDIX  215 

their  bread  cooked  where  they  please  ;  this  is  justice,  and 
if  it  does  not  exist  it  miist  be  established. 

Mesves-sur-Loire. — Formerly,  almost  all  parishes  had  a 
certain  amount  of  land  held  jointly  by  the  inhabitants, 
and  called  commons  for  this  reason.     These  lands  were 
most  useful  to  the  people,  since  they  served  as  pastures  for 
the  cattle  ;  in  this  way  almost  every  household  could  keep 
a  cow  from  which  it  obtained  a  Httle  milk.     This  was  a   . 
great  convenience  for  all,  and  more  than  a  convenience 
for  the  children.     The  seigneurs  have  deprived  the  poor  of 
this  privilege  by  exploiting  the  commons  for  their  own 
profit  ;  in  consequence,  no  more  cows,  no  more  milk,  and 
scarcely   any   food   for   the   children.     To    deprive   the 
children  of  food,  or  render  it  difficult  to  obtain,  is  to 
wound  the  people  in  the  most  grievous  fashion.  .  .  .  This 
explanation  will  show  how  important  it  is,  not  only  for 
the  poor  but  for  the  State  itself,  that  the  commons  should 
be  given  up  by  the  seigneurs, who  have  done  much  less  good 
by  taking  them  than  they  have  done  wrong  to  the  people 
and  to  the  State. 

There  is  much  reason  to  complain  of  the  expenses 
caused  by  the  compilation  of  new  manor-rolls .  As  these  are 
made  by  the  lords'  orders  and  for  their  benefit,  it  would 
be  just  if  they  alone  bore  the  cost,  and  not  the  vassals, 
for  whom  it  is  sufficient  injury  to  be  called  away  from 
their  work  to  make  the  declarations  demanded  from  them. 
And  yet  the  seigneur  .  .  .  pays  nothing  and  the  vassal 
.  .  pays  for  all.     If  he  paid  but  little  the  injustice  would 
be  less  crying,  but  the  poor  peasant,  defenceless  against 
the  greed  of  the  commissary,  is  obhged  to  pay  all  that  he 
demands,  and  what  he  demands  is  sometimes  equal  to  the 
value  of  the  object  declared.     Commissaries  have  been 
known  to  extract  20,000  or  30,000  livres  from  parishes 
whose    taxes    amounted   to    only    1000    crowns.       Such 
horrible  exactions  demand  a  reform  which  would  compel 
those  who  are  interested  in  its  compilation  to  bear  the 
costs  of  the  manor-roll. 


216     THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

Montgermonf. — We  demand  that  the  tithe  of  flax  and 
others  known  as  lesser  tithes  be  suppressed. 

Noyal-sur-Vilaine. — We  demand  that  the  feudal 
jurisdictions  be  abolished  because  of  the  too  great 
authority  they  give  the  seigneurs  over  their  vassals  ;  the 
latter  rarely  obtain  justice  in  them.  Let  courts  be  estab- 
lished in  each  arrondissement ;  let  justice  be  rendered  in 
the  King's  name  and  the  officers  .  .  .  chosen  from  the 
order  of  plebeians,  for  commoners  ought  to  judge  one 
another. 

Plechatel. — Besides  the  rents  that  they  are  obliged  to 
pay  to  the  said  seigneurs  they  are  subjected  to  the  corvees 
of  mills  .  .  .  without  any  recompense ;  and  though  they 
contribute  to  the  repair  of  the  mills  they  are  defrauded 
daily  by  the  millers,  who  retain  a  third  of  the  corn  brought 
to  them.  They  also  pay  lods  et  ventes  to  the  lords  on  each 
mutation  of  property,  even  for  exchanges,  at  the  eighth 
of  the  contract  price.  They  demand  to  be  discharged 
from  all  rents  and  other  seigneurial  dues,  and  from  the 
right  of  lods  et  ventes  ;  that  franc-alleu  be  the  general 
law  ;  that  they  be  exempt  from  the  odious  corvee  of  mills, 
and  permitted  to  grind  their  corn  where  they  please,  with- 
out being  tied  to  any  particular  mill. 

Precy. — We  demand  the  purchase  of  the  seigneurial 
rents,  terrages,  and  champarts  whether  lay  or  ecclesiastical, 
at  a  price  fixed  by  the  States-General.  They  are  burden- 
some rights,  invented  by  feudalism,  and  repaid  a  hundred 
times  ;  they  cause  agriculture  to  languish,  crush  the 
peasant's  industry,  and  discourage  the  proprietor. 

Puy-l'Eveque. — This  community  has  only  too  many 
examples  of  the  commerce  carried  on  by  the  seigneurs  in 
lands  which  they  acquire  by  means  of  the  feudal  retrait  or 
through  the  surcharges  they  impose  upon  purchasers. 
O  august  Prince  !  it  was  reserved  for  you  alone  to  destroy 
the  prejudices  which  degrade  the  citizen  and  overwhelm 
the  poor  man  in  his  cottage  ;  therefore  we  hope  that  in 
your  wisdom  you  will  suppress  this  right  of  retrait  as 


APPENDIX  217 

contrary  to  social  laws  ;  abolish  the  rights  of  acapte  which 
serve  no  purpose  but  to  renew  the  tears,  sighs,  and  regrets 
of  famiUes  for  a  father  who  takes  with  him  in  death  the 
hopes,  the  ease  and  very  often  the  bread  of  his  children. 
.  .  .  You  will  add  to  these  benefits  by  the  prescrip- 
tion after  thirty  years  of  all  feudal  and  seigneurial  dues. 
What,  in  truth,  can  be  more  iniquitous  than  for  a  seigneur 
to  demand,  even  extort,  by  means  of  a  title  three  or  four 
hundred  years  old,  a  rent  which  has  perhaps  been  bought 
up,  enfranchised  or  modified  ;  nay,  more,  has  possibly 
never  existed  ?  It  is  the  height  of  tjaanny,  of  contempt 
for  good  sense  and  sane  reason. 

Roquemaure. — The  tolls  should  be  totally  abolished 
throughout  the  realm.  These  odious  rights  ought  no 
longer  to  exist,  since  the  roads,  bridges,  causeways,  and 
banks  of  streams,  as  well  as  the  pohce,  have  for  centuries 
been  kept  up  at  the  expense  of  the  people.  The  indem- 
nity, if  it  be  absolutely  necessary  to  accord  one  to 
those  who  enjoy  these  rights,  would  be  a  small  matter 
in  comparison  with  the  advantage  to  be  derived  from  their 
suppression.  Churches  which  own  tolls  might  be  com- 
pensated by  means  of  a  benefice  of  an  equivalent  revenue. 
From  Le  Bourg-Saint-Andeol  to  Aries,  there  are  seven 
tolls  belonging  to  the  Church. 

Rouvray-Saint-Denis. — We  submit  that  the  right  of 
franc-fief  is  burdensome  to  the  people,  especially  to  small 
proprietors  ;  these  properties  ought  not  to  be  owned  by 
the  seigneurs.  And,  in  truth,  is  it  not  a  misfortune  for 
small  holders  and  poor  persons,  who  only  possess  three 
or  four  mines  of  land,  to  be  obliged  to  pay  a  year's 
revenue,  or  even  more,  at  each  mutation  and  every 
twenty  years  ?  In  consequence,  we  demand  the  abolition 
of  this  tax. 

Roz-sur-Couesnon. — All  seigneurial  servitudes  what- 
ever, as  well  as  tlie  lods  et  venles  on  contracts  of  exchange, 
shall  be  definitively  and  irrevocably  suppressed,  the 
servitudes   being   contrary   to   natural   right   and   good 


218  THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

order,  and  the  lods  et  ventes  on  exchanges  improper,  since 
this  species  of  contract  cannot  and  ought  not  to  be  con- 
sidered as  an  ahenation. 

Rugny. — The  deputies  will  represent  that,  as  almost 
all  the  seigneurs  farm  out  their  feudal  rights,  it  is  to  the 
interest  of  the  farmers  to  extend  them  as  much  as  they 
possibly  can  ;  that  very  often  they  exact  the  tierce  in 
places  where  only  a  cens  is  due,  and  the  poor  peasant,  . 
who  trembles  at  the  sight  of  a  summons,  prefers  to  pay  j 
rather  than  sustain  a  prosecution.  \ 

Sabran. — The  tithe  ought  to  be  suppressed.  It  was  \ 
accorded  in  the  beginning  to  apostohc  pastors  who  i 
esteemed  it  an  honour  to  instruct  the  people,  who  edified  i 
it  by  their  example,  assisted  and  consoled  it  in  the  differ-  ' 
ent  situations  of  hfe.  To-day  it  passes  to  men  who  are  ] 
known,  most  frequently,  only  by  the  orders  to  seize  the  j 
fruits  of  land  they  have  not  cultivated  that  they  transmit 
to  their  agents.  \ 

Saint-Amand-de-Bonnieure. — The  parish  is  much  sur- 
charged with  feudal  rents  due  to  nine  or  ten  seigneurs, 
which  rents  absorb  its  revenues.  Most  of  the  properties 
pay  more  than  three  bushels  of  corn  per  ploughland.  .  .  . 
When  the  proprietors  have  sown  their  land  in  the  hope  of 
gaining  their  living  and  paying  their  rents  and  taxes,  j 
the  lords  of  the  neighbourhood  hunt  across  the  fields  at 
all  seasons,  on  horse  and  on  foot,  with  packs  of  dogs,  so 
that  at  all  times  the  harvest  is  destroyed. 

Saint-Cernin. — The  community  of  Saint-Cemin  will 
end  its  remonstrances  by  a  slight  sketch  of  its  sad  situa- 
tion. For  a  century  its  soil  has  been  devastated  by  the 
torrents  ...  it  totally  lacks  forage  and  pasture  ;  it  pays 
so  excessive  a  censive  that  after  it  has  paid  to  the  tithe- 
owner,  the  King,  and  the  different  seigneurs,  there  remains 
for  each  inhabitant's  subsistence  no  more  than  2  sols 
per  day. 

Saint-H Hair e-le-Gr and. — A  thing  which  excites  the 
protests  and  complaints  of  a  great  number  of  parishes  in 


APPENDIX  219 

Champagne,  and  of  the  parish  of  Grand-Saint-Hilaire 
in  particular,  is  that  all  the  inhabitants  without  distinc- 
tion, and  the  peasants  more  than  any  others,  are  sub- 
jected to  seigneurial  rights  which  deprive  them  of  part 
of  their  harvests.  Several  cantons  of  this  territory  are 
also  charged  with  ce7is  and  surcens  which  are  injurious 
to  agriculture,  since  these  sorts  of  rights  (the  titles, 
origins,  and  limits  of  which  are  not  always  known)  are 
rigorously  exacted,  even  in  bad  years.  The  general  wish 
of  the  Third  Estate  is  that  these  taxes,  which  are  evi- 
dently reUcs  of  feudal  barbarism  and  servitude  that 
contribute  nothing  to  the  prosperity  of  the  realm,  should 
be  aboUshed  if  possible,  or  at  least  modified  to  the  point 
of  being  no  longer  onerous  to  the  people  ;  if  justice  is 
opposed  to  their  suppression,  at  least  the  parishes  should 
be  authorised  to  enfranchise  themselves  by  a  sum  of  money 
paid  once  for  all. 

Saint-Jean-de-Beri. — The  tolls,rights  of  leude, cvsioms, 
havage,  prevoie,  and  others  of  this  character,  levied  by 
various  lords  on  the  cattle,  commodities,  and  merchan- 
dise carried  to,  and  sold  in,  the  fairs  and  markets  of  the 
towns,  boroughs,  and  villages,  are  so  many  taxes  raised 
from  the  King's  subjects  ;  they  have  no  other  foundation 
than  the  usurpation  of  the  seigneurs  on  the  royal  rights  ; 
they  are  contrary  to  the  freedom  of  commerce,  and 
establish  a  vexatious  inquisition  over  merchants.  For 
these  reasons,  the  inhabitants  demand  the  aboUtion  of 
such  rights,  and  that  in  future  the  King  alone  shall  levy 
impositions  on  the  subjects  of  hs  realm. 

The  seigneurs  lay  hands  indiscriminately  on  the 
commons,  wastes,  and  pastures  ;  they  lease  out  even  the 
streets  and  exits  from  villages.  The  unfortunates  who 
lived  on  the  products  of  one  or  two  cows  which  furnished 
them  with  milk  and  gave  subsistence  to  their  children, 
have  been  deprived  of  this  resource  by  the  enclosures 
made  on  the  commons.  .  .  .  They  dare  not  even  com- 
plain ;   they  lack  the  means  to  sustain  a  lawsuit ;   they 


220     THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

weep  and  give  themselves  over  to  despair.  Therefore, 
the  inhabitants  demand  and  sohcit  a  definitive  regulation, 
which,  without  regard  to  the  enclosures  made  in  the  last 
forty  years,  shall  fix  and  determine  the  property  of  the 
vassals  in  the  wastes  and  commons,  according  to  the 
infeudations,  and  that  all  disputes  which  may  arise  out 
of  the  execution  of  this  regulation  shall  be  decided  by  ' 
the  royal  judges.  ] 

Saird-Loup-des-Vignes. — We  demand  that  the  manor- 
rolls  shall  not  be  renewed  oftener  than  every  fifty  years,    ^ 
and  that  the  fees  of  the  commissaries  be  reduced. 

Saint-Pere-Marc-en-Poulet. — The  feudal  retraits,  in 
themselves  injurious  to  circulation  and  to  the  good  of 
agriculture,  shall,  if  not  suppressed,  at  least  be  reduced 
within  the  narrowest  limits,  that,  m  consequence,  the 
seigneurs  shall  not  be  permitted  to  exercise  this  exorbitant  i 
right  of  feudalism  save  in  cases  of  indispensable  neces-  \ 
sity  .  .  .  and  that  the  odious  faculty  the  lords  possess 
of  ceding  their  right  of  retrait  shall  be  abolished,  as 
contrary  to  equity  and  the  principles  of  social  liberty. 

Sainte-Vertu. — ^The  community  demands  the  abolition 
of  the  seigneurial  justices  and  their  repldcement  by 
royal  judges  and  notaries. 

Thorey. — It  would  be  very  advantageous,  both  to 
the  State  and  the  people,  to  abolish  the  cens,  corvees, 
and  tierces,  which  are  survivals  of  ancient  servitude  and 
encroachments  on  the  sovereign's  rights  ;  they  often 
make  it  impossible  for  individuals  to  pay  the  royal 
taxes. 

Tilloy. — The  seigneurial  corvees  should  be  suppressed 
as  dishonourable  and  degrading  to  the  French  people. 

Tinteniac. — There  is  still  at  Tint6niac  a  charge  which 
ought  no  longer  to  exist,  namely,  that  of  havage  ;  it  is 
raised  at  the  principal  fairs  on  corn,  butter,  and  other 
commodities  exposed  for  sale.  This  due  was  tolerated 
in  the  days  when  the  seigneurs  were  charged  with  the 
pursuit  of  crimes  .  .  .  but  now  that  these  same  crimes 


APPENDIX  221 

are  prosecuted  at  the  cost  of  the  King's  domains,  the  said 
due  ought  no  longer  to  exist. 

Tivenion. — We  demand  that  the  lords  shall  no  longer 
be  permitted  to  plant  avenues  of  elms  and  other  trees 
injurious  to  agriculture  along  the  roads  and  on  the  pro- 
perties of  private  persons,  unless  the  latter  have  given 
their  consent  and  received  compensation  for  the  damage 
such  plantations  may  cause  them. 

Tonncrrc. — Since  all  the  seigneurs  are  proceeding  to 
renew  their  manor-rolls,  the  deputies  will  point  out  that 
the  fees  of  the  commissaries  have  been  prodigiously 
increased  in  recent  years,  and  have  become  an  over- 
whelming surcharge  upon  the  people. 

Treshceiif. — The  inhabitants  complain  .  .  .  that  as 
certain  lords  of  fiefs  allow  their  feudal  rents  to  fall  into 
arrears  for  sometimes  twenty-nine  or  thirty  years,  it 
happens  that  properties  charged  with  heavy  rents  are 
found  to  be  burdened  beyond  their  intrinsic  value,  which 
compels  the  proprietors  to  aHenate  them  to  meet  the 
arrears.  For  this  reason  it  would  appear  to  be  just  that 
seigneurs  should  not  be  allowed  to  demand  their  rents 
after  five  years. 

Vannes. — The  municipality  soHcits  :  The  suppres- 
sion of  all  the  small  jurisdictions  which  are  so  burden- 
some to  the  people,  above  all,  in  the  rural  districts.  .  .  . 
The  abolition  of  all  tithes  and  champarts,  levied  on  the 
various  products  of  agriculture. 

Vastevillc. — The  parish  of  Vasteville  .  .  .  had,  as  its 
only  resource,  several  heaths,  downs,  valleys,  and  com- 
mons over  which  it  enjoyed  a  right  of  pasturage  ;  but 
the  seigneur  has  seized  them  by  violence  and  leased 
them  out.  This  deprives  the  community  of  all  resources, 
enfeebles  agriculture,  and  diminishes  population.  .  .  . 
The  community  very  humbly  represents  that  it  is  afflicted, 
eaten  up,  and  pillaged  by  the  rabbits  and  pigeons  which 
destroy  the  corn,  and  is  unable  to  defend  itself  as  fire- 
arms are  absolutely  prohibited.     It  would,  therefore,  be  a 


222    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 

general  benefit  to  all  the  rural  districts  if  these  abuses 
were  destroyed. 

Villeau. — We  submit  that  it  would  be  very  beneficial 
to  the  Third  Estate  to  abolish  the  right  oi  franc-flef  which. 
all  non-noble  proprietors  are  obUged  to  pay  to  the  King 
every  twenty  years,  and  at  all  deaths  and  mutations. 
This  charge  is  infinitely  burdensome,  since  it  absorbs 
one  and  a  half  years'  revenue  of  noble  land  ;  it  is,  at  the 
same  time,  very  restrictive  of  the  sale  and  ahenation  of 
this  class  of  property. 

Villeneuve-l'Archeveque. — Another  abuse  in  the  ad- 
ministration of  justice  is  the  multipUcity  of  seigneurial 
courts,  of  which  five  or  more  are  often  found  in  a  single 
parish  ;  in  most  of  these  jurisdictions  it  is  Impossible  to 
find  ofiicers  who  reside  on  the  spot,  which  causes  justice 
to  languish  and  imposes  illegal  fees  on  the  parties.  .  .  . 
In  most  of  these  jurisdictions  there  are  no  prisons.  For 
these  and  other  reasons  all  such  courts  should  be  sup- 
pressed, and  replaced  by  royal  courts  in  each  arrondisse- 
ment. 

Villereau. — The  inhabitants  of  Villereau  demand 
that  the  tithe  raised  in  their  parish  shall  be  paid  in  kind 
as  in  the  past,  and  that  the  champarts  shall  be  suppressed. 
They  offer  to  redeem  this  right  at  the  valuation  made 
of  it. 

They  entreat  His  Majesty  to  permit  the  inhabitants 
of  parishes  which  border  on  the  forest,  or  where  there  are 
warrens,  to  kill  the  rabbits  and  other  game  on  their  own 
land  ;  also  to  enjoin  the  seigneurs  who  have  pigeon-cotes 
to  kill  their  pigeons. 

Villers-aux-Corneilles. — Suppress  all  the  ecclesiastical 
lordships  which,  to  the  detriment  of  religion,  inspire 
great  pride  in  those  who  possess  them,  and  employ  their 
revenues  for  the  good  of  the  State. 

Villiers-Louis. — The  inhabitants  charge  their  depu- 
ties :  To  demand  the  suppression  of  the  monopolies 
of  mills.     They  suffer  the  greatest   damage  from   this 


APPENDIX  228 

cause  by  reason  of  the  harshness  of  the  millers  and  the 
arbitrary  character  of  their  fees,  which  deprive  them 
of  a  portion  of  their  corn.  ...  To  observe  that,  if  the 
game  destroys  the  harvests,  the  multitude  of  pigeons  is 
also  very  injurious,  because  they  carry  off  the  seed  and 
eat  the  crops  when  they  come  to  maturity. 


INDEX 


Acapte,  24,  130,  135,  189 
Agenais,    Feudal    rights    in    the, 

37 
Aiguillon,  Due  d',  102,  103,  106, 

107 
Aix-en-Issart,  62 
Alen^on,  45,  48 
AUier,  Insurrections  in  the,  161 
Alsace,  Feudal  rights  in,   10,   11, 

14,  15,  22.  23 

—  Insurrections    in,    109,    121-2, 

169,  187 

—  Landownership  in,  58,  60,  63 
Amiens,  62 

Amont,  80 

Angers,  197 

Angoumois,  Feudal  rights  in.  18, 

43 

—  Peasants  of,  67 
Ansouis,  24 
Arc-sur-Tille,  25 
Argentan,  114 
Argenteuil,  83 

Aries,  Archbishop  of,  108 

Arras,  60 

Artigues,  66 

Artix,  II 

Artois,  Count  d',  90 

—  Feudal  rights  in,  14.  15 

—  Landownership  in,  38,  60 
Asnan, 162 

Attigny,  117 

Aulard,  A.,  7,  10,  22,  38,  42,  175, 
194,  196 

Auvergne,  Distribution  of  pro- 
perty in,  58,  60,  63 

—  Feudal  rights  in,  10,  11,  14,  15, 

22,  23 

—  Insurrections    in,    109,    121-2, 

169,  187 
Auxerre,  22 
Auxey-le-Grand,  49 
Aveux,  19,  34,  42,  133,  159 

Bain,  74,  121 
15 


Balaze,  70 

Banalitis,  25,  77,  133-4 

Bans  de  vetidange,  32,  133 

Banvins,  32,  133 

Bar-sur- Seine,  49 

Basses- Alpes,  Insurrections  in  the, 

118,  163 
Bastille,  Capture  of  the,  91-3 
Baudoncourt,  96 
B6arn,    Distribution   of   property 

in,  58 
Beaufremont,  Princesse  de,  94 
Beaujolais,   Industry  in   the,   54, 

142 
Beaulieu,  159 
Beauregard,  63 
Belfort,  158 
Bellefond,  84 
Bellegarde,  85 
Bernier,  Abb6,  60 
Berry,    Distribution    of    property 

in,  60 

—  Feudal  rights  in,  6,  16,  29 
Besan9on,  89 
Betancourt,  94,  119 
Biauzet,  Gualtier  de,  136 
Bienvenue,  il 

Birac,  24 
Blandy,  171 
Bleruais,  74 
Boiteau,  P.,  xviii,  55 
Boitron,  87 
Boncerf,  6,  7,  41,  42 
Bordelage,  6,  132,  192 
Bordelais,     Distribution    of    pro- 
perty in  the,  57 

—  Feudal  rights  in  the,  36 
Bouches-du-Khone.  163 
Bouillon,  Due  de,  45 
Bourbonnais,     Feudal    rights     in 

the,  22 
Bourbriac.  37 
Bourey,  37 
Bourgcs,  66,  72 
Bouron,  116 


226  THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 


Bouteillage,  31 
Bouzonville,  109 
Brangues,  150 
Brehal,  37 
Breuvery,  29 

Bricqueville-la-Blouette,  70 
Bridrey,  E.,  57,  71 
Brienon-sur-Armangon,  28 
Brittany,  Cahiers  of,  71,  72 

—  Distribution    of    property    in, 

23.  59 

—  Enclosures  in,  48,  50,  81 

—  Feudal  rights  in,  10,  14,  22-5, 

34.  37.  43.  48 

—  Industry  in,  54 

—  Insurrections  in,  93,  94,  119-21, 

171 

—  Peasants  of,  65,  75 
Brotte,  96 

Broves,  27 
Burgoin,  93,  97 

Burgundy,  Distribution  of  pro- 
perty in,  21,  58 

—  Enclosures  in,  49,  50 

—  Feudal  rights  in,  5,  6,  32 

—  Insurrections  in,  94 
Bussi^re,  G.,  53,  54,  122,  124 
Buxi^res,  161 

Buzot,  105 

Cabrieres-d'Aigues,  27 

Cahiers  de  doUances,  67  et  seq., 

Campel,  120  •  ^'= 

Cantonnement,  48 

Capet,  Hugues,  xv 

Castillon,  23 

Castres,  108 

Catus,  37 

Caudan,  157 

Caulnes,  10 

Celles,  63 

Cens,  Censive,  12,  43,  77,  78,  135, 
171,  180 

Chalons,  44 

Champagne,  Distribution  of  pro- 
perty in,  22,  63 

—  Feudal  rights  in,  11,  12,  15,  35, 

37.  44       ^ 

—  Peasants  of,  63 

Champart,   12-14,  44,  45,  77,   112, 
130,  135,  154,  171-2,  180,  190 
Champigny,  21 
Champion,  E.,  11,  55,  66,  71 
Chaon,  '77 
Chapelier,  105 


Charente,    Insurrections    in    the, 

170 
Charlier,  196 
Chartres,  Bishop  of,  105 
Chasset,  143 
Chateaubriant,  184 
Chateau-Thierrj',  89 
Chateauvillain,  162 
Chatelet,  Duo  du,  105 
Chatillon,  54 
Chef -feu,  11,  133 
Chevannes,  66 
Cieurac,  75 
Clerget,  Abb6,  6 
Clermont-Tonnerre,  M.  de,  8,  96 
Club,  Breton,  102 
CoUgny,  35 
Colombe,  37 
Combleux,  77 
Combret,  115 
Commissaires  i  terrier,  20 
Commons.     See  Enclosures 
Conard,  P.,  56,  99,  117 
Corr^ze,     Insurrections     in     the, 

162,  163,  172 
Corsage,  11 
Corvies,  2,  12,  15,  34,  77,  80,  133, 

155 

Cosse,  Brissac,  Due  de,  175 

Cote-d'Or,  25 

Cotentin,     Distribution    of    pro- 
perty in  the,  57 

—  Feudal  rights  in  the?,  37 
Coulonches,  98 
Courceaux,  35 
Cremieu,  93 

Creuse,  Insurrections  in  the,  171 
Croses,  63 
Cuguen,  27 

Davenescourt,  162 
Dauphine,    Distribution    of    pro- 
perty in,  58,  63 

—  Feudal  rights  in,  38,  56 

—  Insurrections  in,  93,  94,  97,  99, 

100,  108,  118 
Decrees,  August  1789,   no,    112, 

"5 

—  March  1790,  128,  147  -" 

—  April,  1790,  143 

—  May  1790,  128,  147 

—  June  1790,  174 

—  August  1790,  145-^ 

—  September  1790,  145 

—  October  1790,  144 

—  November  1790,  174 


INDEX 


227 


Decrees,  April  1791,  174 

—  August  1792,  190 

—  June  1793.  195 

—  July  1793,  196 
De lisle,  L.,  i 
Dijon,  89 

Documents,    Burning    of    feudal, 

196-7 
Domaine  congiable,  59 
Dorliac,  188 
Dornont,  82 
Dues,    Feudal,    in    Middle    Ages, 

2,  12 

—  Feudal,  in  1789,  3,  35 

—  Origin  of  feudal,  33 

—  See  also  Cens,  Mainmorte,  etc. 
Dupont,  E.,  19,  34 

Dupont  de  Nemours,  142 

Ebblinghem,  158 

Echemines,  26 

Edicts,  1669,  48,  137,  193 

—  1768,  39 

—  1779,  7,  8,  no 

—  1786,  39 

Enclosures,  47  et  seq.,  81,  193,  195 
Enfranchisements,  4,  7-10 
Entragues,  Count  d',  90 
Erbray,  23 
Esp^e,  36,  64 
Essey-les-Nancy,  11 
Estenos,  62 
Etalage,  31 

Fairs,  31,  133 

Faucherais,  28 

"  Fear,  Great,"  92,  97 

Finot,  Jules,  6 

Flach,  Jules,  35 

Flanders,  Feudal  rights  in,  14 

Florinage,  27 

Fontaine,  Priory  of,  7 

Fontenay-Bossery,  77 

Fontignau,  157 

Forcalquier,  64 

Formariage,  10 

Fouesnel,  23 

Franc-alleu,  21,  56 

Franc- fief,  61,  62,  85,  134 

Franche-Comt6,  Feudal  rights  in, 

5.  6,  9.  10 
— Insurrections  in,  94,  97 
— Parliament  of,  8 
Froide-Conche,  96 
Fumage,  46,  133 
Fustel  de  Coulanges,  xv 


Gandilhon,  29.  72 

Garat,  194 

Gard,  Insurrections  in  the,  169, 

187 
Germeville,  43 
Gers,  162 
Giffard  (A.),  35 
Gimel,  57 
Glanettes,  28 
God  in,  166-9 
Goudex,  62 
Grandechamps,  32 
Grimaucourt,  116 
Gua,  118 
Guerstling,  182 
Guithen,  15 

Hainaut,  Feudal  rights  in,  14 

Hallage,  31 

Hambye,  Abbey  of,  12 

Hammond,  J.  L.  &  B.,  47 

Hanotaux,  G.,  xvi 

Haucourt,  116 

Hautbois,  28 

Haye-Dix,  28 

Heiteren,  119 

Heriot,  24 

Hunting,  Rights  of,  28,  81,  in, 

158 
Hurigny,  99,  100 

Ilhteracy,  65 

Insurrections.    See  under  names  of 

Provinces  and  Departments 
Isor^,  196 
Iss6,  19 

Jouy-sous-les-Cotes,  160 
Jurisdictions,  Feudal,  xvii,  3,  33, 
83.  Ill,  144-5,  158 

Kar6iew,  N.,  5.  45.  56,  135 
Kerengall,  Le  Guen  de,  103 
Ker-Salun,  Comte  de,  119 
Kovalewsky,  M.,  23,  45,  55 
Kropotkin,  P.,  92,  99 

La  Beslidre,  16 

La  Chapelle,  96 

La  Ferri^re-Borchard,  49 

Laill6,  46 

La  Lande  d'Airon,  70 

La  Marche,  9 

La  Molle,  45 

Landres,  96 

Languedoc,  Feudal  rights  in,  20 


228    THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 


Languedoc,  Insurrections  in,  163 
Lanjuinais,  106 
Laon,  54 

Lardimalie,  Foucauld  de,  127 
Largouet,  32 

Laxochefoucauld,  Due  de,  41 
La  Rougere,  9 
Launac,  66 

Lautour-Ducliatel,  188 
Le  Mele,  27 
Le  Mesnil-sur-Oger,  44 
Lengronne,  12 
Lens-Lestang,  108 
Liancourt,  Due  de,  loS 
Limousin,     Distribution    of    pro- 
perty in  the,  58,  60,  62 

—  Insurrections  in  the,  127 
Limousis,  18,  44 

Lindre,  114 

Lods  et  ventes,  22,  23,  24,  34,  45, 

61,  77,  78,  130,  135,  181,  189 

Loiret,  Insurrections  in  the,   162, 

173 
Lorraine,  Feudal  rights  m,  11,  14, 
15,  22,  24,  27,  44 

—  Insurrections  in,  109,  114-5 
Lostanges,  Marquis  de,  174-7 
Lot,  Insurrections  in  the,   165-9, 

171-2,  187,  194 
Lot-et-Garonne,  24,  115 
Loubedat,  115 
Louhans,  197 
Louis  le  Gros,  xvi 
Louis  XI,  xvi 
Louis  XIV,  XV,  xvi 
Louis  XVI,  7,  89,  108,  no 
Loupiac,  38 
Loutchisky,    J.,    42,    46,    54,    57, 

58,  60,  62 
Loyette,  50 
Luchaire,  A.,  i 
Luxeuil,  Abbey  of,  5,  7,  89,  96 

Maconnais,   Insurrections  in  the, 

94,  99,  100 
Mailhe,  189,  193 
Maillerancourt,  96 
Maine,    Insurrections  in,   94,   98, 

114, 169 
Mainmorte,  4-10,  45,  78,  109,  in, 

130,  131-3,  155,  192 
Malaucourt,  116 
Malgolerian,  32 
Marat,  J.  P.,  no 
Marche,  Mainmorte  in,  6,  9 
Marciage,  24 


Marcille- Robert,  70 

Margerie,  77 

Marion,  H.,  38,  40,  144 

Marion,  M.,  36,  37,  38,  46,  57,  79 

Markets,  31,  133 

Marseilles,  89 

Marthon,  18 

Mathieu,  Cardinal,  15 

Maumusson,  50 

Measures,  18,  31 

Mege,  F.,  25,  42,  46 

Merlin  de  Douai,  128,  144,  170 

Mesnil-Garnier,  37 

Mesurage,  31 

Mirabeau,  106 

—  Marquise  de,  22 
Mirfecourt,  197 

Monopolies,  Feudal,  2,  3,  25,  43, 

77,  80,  133-4,  155 
Montaign-les-Bois,  37 
Montaut,  164 
Montferrat,  38,  149 
Montigny,  95 
Montjoye-Vaufrey,  45,  50 
Montmedy,  44 
Montpezat,  127 
Morbihan,    Insurrections   in    the, 

171 

Nadillac,  40 

Nancy,  Bishop  of,  105 

Necker,  7,  55,  58,  84,  89,  142 

Nemours,  45 

Nerac,  115 

Nerondes,  79 

Nimes,  85 

Nitting,  160 

Nivernais,  Mainmorte  in  the,  5 

Noailles,  Due  de,  62 

—  Vicomte  de,  102,  103 
Noblesse,  xvii,  28 

Normandy,    Distribution   of   pro- 
perty in,  57,  59 

—  Feudal  rights  in,  4,  22,  37 

—  Insurrections  in,  94 
Notables,  Assembly  of,  41 
Nouzier,  Prior  of,  9 
Nuisement-sur-Coole,  44 

Oger,  63 

Ogneville,  160 

Omelmont,  15 

Oraison,  119 

Orleanais.,  Feudal   rights    in    the, 

13 

—  Industry  in  the,  54 


INDEX 


229 


Ornacieux,  93 
Oudot,  189 

Paimpont,  22 

Paladru,  93 

Palluand,  38 

Pas  -  de  -  Calais,    Distribution     of 

property  in  the,  21 
Passage,  93 
Peasants,  Economic  condition  of, 

63  et  seq. 

—  Illiteracy  of,  65,  66 
Perigord,  Insurrections  in,    122-6 

170 

—  Peasants  of,  53 
Peypin-d'Aigues,  43 

Picardy,  Distribution  of  property 
in,  58 

—  Franc-fief  in,  61 
Pierre- Buffi^re,  22 
Pierre-Moraine,  12,  37 
Pierreville,  73 
Pigeons,  28,  81,  in 
Plerguer,  82 
Pleumeleuc,  25 
Ploermel,  121 
Plombi^res,  96 
Poet-Sigillat,  118 
Poitiers,  44 

Poitou,   Distribution  of  property 
in,  59 

—  Insurrections  in,  94 

—  Noblesse  of,  xviii 
Pons,  Vicomtesse  de,  93 
Pont-Dauphin,  28 
Ponthole,  49 
Pontonnage,  31,  133 
Prtlation,  23,  115,  133 
Provence,  Due  de,  48 

—  Feudal  rights  in,  11,  43 

—  Insurrections  in,  93,  108,  118 
Prussia,  Feudalism  in,  16 
Pulverage.  31,  133 

Purgerot,  94 
Puscy,  9 

Qu6briac,  29 

Quercy,  Distribution  of  property 
in.  58 

—  Feudal  rights  in,  11,  24,  25,  36 

—  Insurrections  in,  122,  165 

—  Peasants  of,  64-5 

—  Tithes  in,  40 
Quevaise,  10,  132,  192 
Quevilloncourt,  15 
Quimper,  119 


Quimperl6,  29 
Quincerot,  160 
Quint,  24,  77,  189 

Rachat,  24,  130,  135,  189 

Raclage,  31 

Reaction,  Feudal,  41  et  seq.,  60 

Redon,  121 

Reliefs,  Feudal,  25,  189 

Renauldon,  13 

Rennes,  27,  121 

Requint,  24,  77,  189 

Retrait,  23,  61,  115,  133,  157 

Rewbell,  109 

Ricard,  106 

Riez,  118 

Riom,  109 

Robespierre,  127,  137 

Robin,  166-9 

Roqu6pine,  Marquis  de,  62 

Rouergue,    Insurrections    in    the, 

122 
—  Noblesse  of  the,  xviii 
Roussillon,  Noblesse  of,  107 
Ruffec,  Marquis  de,  67 
Rufiign6,  20,  37 

Sagnac,  Ph.,  42,  129-30,  136,  147, 

i8i 
Saint-Cirgues-de-Jordanc,  13 
Saint-Claude,  Serfs  of,  7,  8 
Saint-C>T,  87 
Saint-Ferjus,  150 
Saint-Jean-de-B6r6,  66,  82 
Samt-Leger-de-Foug^res,  66 
Saint-L6,  72 
Saint-Lormel,  26 
Saint-Maixent,  159 
Saint-Martin-de-la-Brasque,  43 
Saint-Martin-du-Tcrter,  82 
Saint-Maugan,  26,  75,  121 
Saint-Maurice-sur-Fessard,  13,  160 
Saintc-Maximc,  27 
Saint-Nicholas-de-Pendray,  18 
Saint-Omer,  60 
Saint-P6ran,  17,  19 
Saint-Pierre-le-Mouticr,  5 
Saint- Simon,  xvii 
Sainte-Solange,  20 
Saint-Victor,  Abbey  of,  108 
Saponcourt,  80,  94 
Sarcelles,  66 
Sauvagire,  98 
Sauvegarde,  14.  133 
Savignac-de-Miremont,  79 
Savigny,  30 


230  THE  FALL  OF  FEUDALISM  IN  FRANCE 


Savoy,  Tithes  in,  40 

See,  H.,  I,  19,  23,  24,  28,  33,  34,  46, 

56,  57,  59 
Seigneuries,  xv,  i,  3 
Seignobos,  C,  i 
Seine-et-Marne,  172 
S'    "e-et-Oise,  Insurrections  in  the, 

C71 
Senne9ay,  70 

Sens,  Archbishop  of,  26,  82 
—  Tolls  at,  31,  45 
Serfdom,  2-10,  130 
Sergentise,  17,  158 
Sieyes,  Abb6,  71,  loi,  106 
Soissons,  60 
Solidarity,  14,  29,  190 
Somme,  Insurrections  in  the,  171 
Strasburg,  89 

Taine,  H.,  36 

Tallage,  133 

Talle5rrand,  142 

Tantonville,  15 

Target,  55,  102 

Tasque,  44,  180 

Tavannes,  M.  de  Saulx,  25 

Tawney,  R.  H.,  47 

Terrage,  12,  13,  45,  135,  138 

Terriers,  20,  46 

Thorouet,  Abbey  of,  27 

Thouret,  71 

Thuellius,  148 

Thueyts,  90 

Tierce,  12,  135,  154 

Tinteniac,  16 

Tithes,  38,  83,  108,  109,  112,  135, 

142-4,  158 
Tocqueville,  A.    de,    xvii,  32,  55, 

57 


Tolls,  Feudal,  31,  45,  133 
Toulouse,  54,  58,  60 
Touraine,     Distribution    of    pro- 
perty in,  60 
—  Feudal  rights  in,  45 
Tournau,  158 
Touzac,  25,  79 
Trelly,  37 
Tr6verien,  74 

Triages,  48,  5°,  5 1.  1 37-  1 93 
Trouchet,  128,  136,  141 
Turgot,  7,  32,  42,  79 

Urvillers,  162 
Uzureau,  Abbe,  197 

Vacqueville,  115 

Vannes,  84 
Vasselay,  65 
Velosnes,  158 
Venisey,  94 
Vesoul,  94 
Vienne,  56,  84 
Ville-d'Abray,  82 
Villedebidon,  87 
Villeneuve,  157 

Villeneuve-l'Archeveque,  26,  31 
Virieu,  Comte  de,  105 
Vironcourt,  96 
Voltaire,  7,  8,  42 

Watch  and  Ward,  14^,  133 
Weights,  31 
Wolves,  29 

Yonne,   Department  of  the,    31, 

163,  172 
Young,  Arthur,  xvii,  58,   64,  65, 

89,  92,  100,  112 


RETURN     CIRCULATION  DEPARTMENT 

TO^-^      202  Main  Library 


LOAN  PERIOD  1 
HOME  USE 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 

Renewals  and  Recharges  may  be  made  4  days  prior  to  the  due  date. 

Books  may  be  Renewed  by  calling     642-3405. 


DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 

OCT  13  1993 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  BERKELEY 
FORM  NO.  DD6  BERKELEY,  CA  94720 


U.C.  BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


CDDS5bM373 


»5f^ 


l<i{Cp  ^iSIO  Q. 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  UBRARY 


